Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Between vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2023

                                      1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7710 of 2019

Between:-
Vishnu Lingadi and Another                                    ....    Petitioners

                                     And

The State of Andhra Pradesh.,
Rep.by its Public Prosecutor & another                   ....        Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners               :   Mr. Srinivasulu Kurra

Counsel for the Respondent No.1           :   Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2           :   Mr.P.Rambhupal Reddy

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.124 of 2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif

Magistrate, Chittoor.

3. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant for the alleged offences under Section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act(for short 'the

D.P.Act'), the police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the said offences.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant was performed with the 1st petitioner/A1

on 21.02.2011 and at the time of the marriage, the parents of 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant gave Rs.12,00,000/- cash, 150 sovereigns

of gold besides 5 Kgs silver and after staying for one week in Chennai at in-

law's house, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant went to Chicago, as

the 1st petitioner/A1 was working there, that he addicted to bad vices and

forced the 2nd respondent to come to pubs and clubs and take alcohol. It is

also the case of the prosecution that the 1st petitioner used to abuse the 2nd

respondent in filthy language, used to threatened her, behave very rudely

and petitioners used to insist the 2nd respondent to demand her parents for

1/3rd share of property as her other two sisters marriages were performed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that various

allegations made against the petitioners are absolutely false and no

allegations in particular, which would attract the offences under Section 498-

A of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act have been made against the 2nd

petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that assuming without

conceding, all the acts made with reference to the allegations in the

complaint occurred in USA and the Charge Sheet as laid against the

petitioners, in the absence of previous sanction of the Central Government

as provided under Section 188 of Criminal Procedure Code(for short

'Cr.P.C.') is not sustainable. The learned counsel also submits that taking

the allegations even at the face value, would not attract the offences alleged

against the petitioners and in such circumstances, continuation of

proceedings against them amounts to abuse of process of Law and

accordingly prays for quashing the proceedings in question.

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in

view of the serious nature of the allegations, it is a matter for trial and there

are no merits warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the

material on record. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that an

elaborate complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent making several

allegations, mostly against the 1st petitioner herein. No specific overtacts

have been attributed to the 2nd petitioner/A2, except an allegation that she

insisted the 2nd respondent to demand from her parents 1/3rd share of the

property, which is vague and lacking in particulars with specific reference to

dates etc. This Court is of the opinion that no case can be made out against

the 2nd petitioner on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations and the

continuation of proceedings against the 2nd petitioner would be a futile

exercise and tantamounts to abuse of process of Law.

8. Insofar as the contention that the continuation of proceedings against

the 1st petitioner with reference to the alleged incidents occurred in USA,

without obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government in terms of

Section 188 of Cr.P.C., the same merits no acceptance in the light of the

settled legal position.

9. In Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, a three

member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter

wherein, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the

offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a question as to

whether in respect of a series offences arising out of the same transaction,

some of which were committed within India and some outside India, such

offences could be tried together, without the previous sanction of the

Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C.?

11. Answering the said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para

Nos.10 and 11 held as follows:

"10. 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. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M.Sahai, J., observed as follows:

"29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one -- commission of an offence; second --

2011 Law Suit(SC) 912

by an Indian citizen; and third -- that it should have been committed outside the country."

Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal's case(supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, 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. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of Section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be required before the trial could commence.

11. Accordingly, upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required."

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while not inclined to interfere with the

decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer for quashing the proceedings

held that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the Trial relating to

offences alleged to have been committed in India and in respect of the

offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned

Magistrate shall not proceed with the Trial without the sanction of the

Central Government as envisaged in the proviso Section 188 of Cr.P.C.

13. In the light of the above stated legal position and taking into

consideration that the allegations made against the 1st petitioner are with

reference to the events occurred in USA/committed outside India, the

learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the Trial without sanction of the

Central Government as envisaged in proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C.