@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Raja. Elango, J.@mdashThese Criminal Petitions are filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners, who are A.1, A.3. A.4 and A3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 57 of 2001 pending on the file of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Parchuru, Prakasam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 498A r/w. Section 120B of IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 in all the petitions.
2. The allegations in the complaint are that the marriage of the daughter of the 2nd respondent herein/de facto complainant and the petitioner/A.1 in Crl.P. No. 3898 of 2012 took place on 29.11.1996 as per the arrangements made by the de facto complainant and the other accused persons. Subsequent to the marriage, some matrimonial disputes arose between the couple and the daughter of the de facto complainant returned from U.S.A. and again she went to U.S.A. The 2nd respondent herein/de facto complainant, who is the father of the girl-Varija, preferred the present complaint for the above said offences.
3. The main allegation as far as the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are concerned, that A.1 informed them that he is a Doctor having obtained a degree and practicing as a doctor, but In fact, he is not a doctor and he has not obtained any such degree. The same was accepted by the investigating agency and a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Even admitting that the entire allegations are true, the offence u/s 406 IPC cannot be attracted and the offence u/s 420 IPC only can be attracted. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners produced a certificate to show that A.1 is a Doctor having obtained degree from a competent University, which is filed along with Crl.P. No. 3898 of 2012. The said fact cannot be disputed in view of the order dated 16.7.2001 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and also the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the Appellate Court of Illinois at U.S.A., when A.1 approached seeking divorce, wherein it was observed that A.1 is practicing as a Doctor.
4. The second allegation for the offence u/s 498A is concerned, the entire allegations made by the de facto complainant on behalf of the aggrieved lady are only against A.1. As far as others are concerned, the allegation is that they suppressed that A.1 is not a Doctor and arranged for marriage. When A.1 is able to prove that he is a doctor, the question of concealing the said fact by others does not arise. Further, there is no allegation to attract the offence u/s 498A IPC as far as other accused are concerned. As far as A.1 is concerned, it is evident from the record that he moved an application before the Court at U.S.A. seeking divorce with the aggrieved girl-Varija and the same was contested by her. After adjudicating the matter at length, an order dated 16.7.2001 was passed by the competent Court at U.S.A. The aggrieved girl challenged the same by way of appeal and the Appellate Court dismissed the same by confirming the order passed by the competent Court. Interestingly, the grounds raised by A.1 in the divorce petition and the grounds raised by the wife of A.1 in the appeal filed by her are one and the same. In fact, A.1 raised the ground of mental cruelty, whereas the wife of A.1 filed counter petition alleging mental cruelty and subsequently amended the counter petition with mental and physical cruelty. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and also the fact that wife of A.1 after returning from India, she went Atlanta and stayed separately for a period of 2 years. Considering the said facts, the Appellate Court at U.S.A. confirmed the order of the trial Court and also the financial assistance given by A.1 to his wife. Most of the allegations contained in these criminal petitions were already adjudicated by the competent Court at U.S.A..
5. Even though the order passed by the competent Court at U.S.A. is for separate proceedings for a separate relief, as far as the findings are concerned, this Court is of the view that the said findings are basing on the evidence adduced by the aggrieved girl and also A.1. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in C.C. No. 57 of 2001 against the petitioners herein, who are A.1, A.3. A.4 and A.5, is liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed.
Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
