The Telangana High Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner (husband) by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 406 of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Facts:
The petitioner and the 3rd respondent (wife) got married. There was no giving or taking of dowry and, on the other hand, the petitioner had given gold ornaments worth ₹2.5 lakhs to the wife. The said marriage was not consummated as the wife had resisted for the same. The petitioner left for U.S.A within three days after the marriage and thereafter, he made arrangements for the arrival of his wife. His wife came to U.S.A., but her behaviour and actions are unexpectedly abusive in nature. She subjected the petitioner to torture and never allowed him to live with her at any point of time. She once again seriously abused in filthy language by shouting at him and breaking the things in the flat. In those circumstances, the petitioner called the U.S. Police and, in their presence, he left the house duly providing maintenance for her and started staying in the Hotel.
The husband approached a local Attorney and got filed a case for legal separation. Summons were issued to the wife, who was still residing in the petitioner's house. In response she expressed her intention to protest the case and sought legal expenses from him. Though, as per the U.S.A. Laws, there is no necessity for the petitioner to make any payment towards her legal expenses, the petitioner still made the payment for her. Despite receiving payment, she did not participate in the proceedings and rather asked for settlement by demanding ₹20 lakhs. The petitioner's Attorney in turn responded by saying that as per California Law, she cannot make such demand. Thereafter, she filed a case against the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act of California, but could not produce any evidence before the Police. She returned to India and got issued a Legal Notice making all false allegations under Sections 498A, 406 of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and his family members and charge sheet was filed by the police.
High Court’s observations
The High Court relied upon the Judgement in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Supreme Court had held that,
“The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government.”
The proviso to Section 188, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
That apart, the Court observed that all the witnesses had categorically stated that the petitioner and his family members never raised any demand for dowry at the time of marriage and the marriage was performed without taking or giving any dowry. Hence, the allegation that the petitioner has demanded additional dowry is un-imaginary. Further, perusal of the charge sheet clearly showed that there was no allegation or whisper about any particular date regarding demand of additional dowry.
High Court held:
The High Court held that the in the instant case no sanction had been obtained by the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence and as such the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was bad in law.
The bench further held that the contentions raised by the 3rd respondent are without any substance and the material produced before this Court, directly indicate the mala fides in prosecution of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, and thereby quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Read the Final Order:
Tags :
