Karnataka High Court

Sri. Venkatareddy Alias ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101548/2021
      C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.101549, 101966
                  AND 101985 OF 2021

IN CRL.P.NO.101548/2021
BETWEEN

SRI. VENKATAREDDY @ KOMMEPALLI VENKATAREDDY,
S/O VENKATARAMANA REDDY,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYED,
R/O 805 FOX SPRING DR., APT # C, CHESTERFIELD,
MISSOURI, U.S.A.-63017.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      THROUGH BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH.

2.   SMT NANDINI W/O VENKATA REDDY,
     AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
     R/O: LIG 77, HOUSING BOARD,
     NETAJI NAGAR, TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
                             2




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN BALLARI
WOMEN    POLICE   STATION   CRIME   NO.1/2021   WHICH   IS
NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.539/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S. 498-A, 504, 323, 506, 109 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, SO FAR AS
THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED.



IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101966/2021
BETWEEN

SMT.KOMMEPALLI PADMAVATHI
W/O. VENKATARAMANAREDDY,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: KATHIVARIPALLI, GANGAPURAM, KALAKADA,
DIST: CHITTOOR, STATE: ANDRA PRADESH-517236.
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      THROUGH BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH.

2.   SMT. NANDINI W/O VENKATA REDDY
     AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
     R/O: LIG 77, HOUSING BOARD, NETAJI NAGAR,
     TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI - 583101.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED)
                             3




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN BALLARI
WOMEN    POLICE   STATION   CRIME   NO.1/2021    WHICH      IS
REGISTERED   AS   C.C.NO.539/2021   ON   THE    FILE   OF   IV
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 109, 498-A, 504, 323, 506, R/W SECTION 34
OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,
IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS
CONCERNED.



IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101985/2021
BETWEEN

1.    SRI. KUNALA RAJA REDDY
      S/O LATE K. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY
      AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED,
      R/O B 201, AKRUTI AURA SPRINGS APARTMENT,
      NARAYANAPPA GARDEN, WHITE FIELD - 560066.

2.    SMT. APARNA W./O KUNALA RAJA REDDY,
      AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O B 201, AKRUTI AURA SPRINGS APARTMENT,
      NARAYANAPPA GARDEN, WHITE FIELD - 560066.

      BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF
      KRISHNA REDDY GARI PALLI, MANDAL,
      MUDUPULAVEMULA PILERU, DIST. CHITTOOR,
      STATE ANDHRA PRADESH - 517214.
                                         ...PETITIONERS
      (BY SRI K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      THROUGH BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
                              4




      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH.

2.    SMT. NANDINI W/O VENKATA REDDY,
      AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER
      R/O: LIG 77, HOUSING BOARD,
      NETAJI NAGAR, TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI - 583101
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI SRI JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN QUASHING
OF    THE   ENTIRE   PROCEEDINGS   INITIATED   AGAINST   THE
PETITIONERS IN BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.1/2021 WHICH IS REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.539/2021 ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI, FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 504, 323, 506 R/W SECTION
34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT, ON FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SO FAR AS
THE    PRESENT   PETITIONERS/ACCUSED    NO.3   AND   4   ARE
CONCERNED.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101549/2021
BETWEEN

SMT. GEETAKUMARI W/O. MR. KOTI REDDY
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYED,
R/O: 111 WOODMIL TERR, KANATA,
CANADA- K2K.                                   ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
                             5




AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      THROUGH BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
      REPRESENTED BY -
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH.

2.    SMT. NANDINI W/O VENKATA REDDY
      AGE: 32 YEARS,
      OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
      R/O LIG 77, HOUSING BOARD,
      NETAJI NAGAR,
      TQ AND DIST: BALLARI- 583101.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN BALLARI
WOMEN    POLICE   STATION   CRIME   NO.1/2021   WHICH   IS
NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.539/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 498-A, 504, 323, 506, 109 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, SO FAR AS
THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED.


      THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  6




                           ORDER

All these petitions arise out of Crime No.1 of 2021

registered by the complainant for offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since

all the cases filed by different accused arise out of the

same crime registered, they are taken up together and

disposed of by this common order.

2. The complainant who is the wife of one

Venkatareddy is also the complainant in the other cases.

Venkatareddy, husband of the complainant is the petitioner

in Criminal Petition No.101548 of 2021 and is accused No.1

in Crime No.1 of 2021. Complainant and accused

No.1/husband got married on 13.10.2011 and immediately

after marriage they moved to USA within 10 days of their

marriage for their avocation. It transpires that the couple

had lot of problems between them USA which ultimately

led to a complaint being registered before the jurisdictional

police when the complainant came back to India. The

complaint so registered becomes an FIR against the

husband and several members of his family for offences as

mentioned supra. The husband calls the said proceedings

in question in Criminal Petition No.101548 of 2021. In the

said petition the husband of the complainant is the only

petitioner. Criminal Petition No.101966 of 2021 is filed by

the mother-law-law of the complainant who is accused

No.2. Criminal Petition No.101549 of 2021 is filed by sister-

in-law of the complainant who is a resident of Canada who

is accused No.5 and Criminal Petition No.101985 of 20211

is filed by sister-in-law and her husband of the complainant

who are accused Nos.3 and 4. Police after investigation

have filed the charge sheet in all these cases against all the

accused. The registration of the crime and police filing

charge sheet has driven all the petitioners to this Court in

the subject petitions.

3. Heard Sri K.L.Patil, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners in all the cases, Sri Jagadish Patil, learned

counsel for the complainant in all the cases and Sri Ramesh

Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend that the complainant without any rhyme or reason

dragged all the members of the family of the husband of

the complainant to the proceedings who do not even reside

in India as accused in the case at hand. A narration of the

complaint or the contents in the summary of the charge

sheet would clearly indicates that vague and omnibus

allegations are made against all the members of the family

while certain allegations are definitely against the husband,

but none of the allegations narrated in the complaint has

happened in India. All the allegations of torture and

harassment have happened outside India when the couple

were living in USA and would, therefore, contend that trial

cannot be conducted against the husband in the case at

hand in India and further proceedings cannot be continued

against other members of the family who do not even

reside with the couple.

4.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel

appearing for the complainant would vehemently refute

these submissions and contends that against the husband

trial can be continued even for offences that are alleged to

have been committed outside India and insofar as other

members of the family is concerned, the learned counsel

submits that since the husband was instigated by frequent

telephone calls to torture the wife, they have been made

accused and it is a matter for trial in which they have to

come out clean and this Court at this juncture, that too

after the police having filed the charge sheet should not

interfere.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

6. I deem it appropriate to consider Criminal Petition

No.101548 of 2021 filed by the husband separately. Since

the entire issue springs from the complaint, it is germane

to notice the complaint and is extracted hereunder for the

purpose of quick reference:

"£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸Àz° À è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt gÉrØ vÁ¬Ä ®Qëöä gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ¢AzÀ £Á£ÉÆ§â ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1) £ÀA¢¤ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ PÀÄ®¢Ã¥ï gÉrØ CAvÁ EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄPÀÌ½zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï «zÁå¨Áå¸À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

2011 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è £À£U À É DAzÀ¥ æ z Àæ ÃÉ ±ÀzÀ avÀÆj Û f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀwÛªÁj¥Á®åA UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄuÁ gÉrØ gÀªg À À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ªÉAPÀlgÉrØ gÀªg À À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ §A¢zÀÄÝ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À vÀAzÉ ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄtgÉrØ vÁ¬Ä ¥ÀzÁäªw À CPÀÌA¢AiÀÄgÁzÀ VÃvÁPÀÄªÀiÁj, C¥Àtð ºÁUÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªg À ÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuA É iÀiÁV 20 ®PÀë ºÀt, ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ 20 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ, ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ 60

vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ PÉÃ½zÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅ CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªA É zÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï £À°è ¸Á¥ïÖªÃÉ gï EAd¤AiÀÄgÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ£É ZÀ£ÁßV zÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛ£É £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄV£ÀUÉ EzÀQÌAvÁ ºÉZÀÄÑ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ ºÀt PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀªg À ÀÄ EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ 10 ®PÀë ºÀt, ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ 10 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀz° À è ZÉÊ£ï, ¨Áæ¸¯ À Émï ºÁUÀÄ GAUÀÄgÀ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ CzÀÌPÉ CªÀgÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13-10-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉUÉ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ »AzÉ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ ºÀt ºÁUÀÄ ªÀg¤ À UÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ §AUÁgÀª£ À ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¸ÀvÀåªÁgÁAiÀÄt gÀrØ gÀªg À ÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ºÀZï. ©üÃªÀÄgÉrØ, ªÉÊ.gÁªÀÄUÉÆÃ¥Á®gÉrØ gÀªg À ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀg£ À À ¨ÁªÀA¢AiÀÄgÁzÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªj À UÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ¯ÉèÃ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13-10-2011 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §¼ÁîjAiÀÄ §¸ÀªÀ ¨sª À £ À z À ° À è CzÀÆÝjAiÀiÁV £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÃÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛg.É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À HgÁzÀ PÀwÛªÁj¥Á®åAUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ 4 ¢£ÀzÀ £ÁªÀÅ C°èzÀÄÝ CªÀg® É ègÀÆ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ZÀ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ 4 ¢£ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.UÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.J £À ¸É¬ÄAmï ®Æ¬ÄUÉ ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï PÁqÀð PÀA¥É¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ C¯ÉèÃ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥Àw æ Ã¢£Á £À£U À É CªÀgÀ vÁ¬ÄUÉ, ºÁUÀÄ

CPÀÌA¢AiÀÄªÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¨ÁªÀ gÁeÁgÉrØUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ MAzÀÄ ¢£À CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÃÉ EzÀÝ°è £À£U À É ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¤£À£U À É CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè ¤Ã£ÀÄ qÀ¸ æ ïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ºÁPÀ¯Áè £À£Àß ¸ÉÖÃl¸ïUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀjºÉÆÃUÀ¯Áè JAzÀÄ ¥Àw æ Ã¢£Á £À£U À É ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. C®èzÃÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ zÀÄrzÀ ºÀtªÉ¯Áè CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ£À UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªj À UÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£ÃÉ wAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝgÃÉ ¤£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà CªÀÄä¤UÉ ºÀt PÀ¼ÀÆ»¹ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ DvÀ£À ¨ÁªÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªj À UÉ ªÀµð À PÉÌ 10 ®PÀëzA À vÉ ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, gÁeÁgÉrØ ¸ÀºÁ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÃ½zÀAvÉ PÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛ£É ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÀt PÉÆqÀzÃÉ EzÀÝ°è ¤ªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄV C°è vÀÄA¨Á PÀµÀÖ ¥ÀqÀÄvÁÛ¼É JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ £Á£ÀÄ ZÀ£ÁßVgÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ E°èAiÀÄ ªÀgU É É ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 50 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¨ÁªÀ DzÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªg À À PÉÊUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛg.É EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2013 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À r¸ÉA§gï wAUÀ¼° À è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÁ¥À¸ï EArAiÀiÁUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Ázï£À PÀÆPÀmï¥À°èAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ £ÀªÀÄä £Á¢¤ VÃvÁPÀÄªÀiÁj gÀªg À À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ ¸ÀºÁ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ¯ÉèÃ EzÀÄÝ C°èUÉ £ÀªÀÄä £Á¢¤ C¥Àtð ºÁUÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ §AzÀÄ C¯ÉèÃ EzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ 20 ¢£À EzÀÄÝ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.J ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ 4 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Ázï£À¯ÉèÃ

EzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ ºÁUÀÄ £Á¢AiÀÄgÁzÀ VÃvÁPÀÄªÀiÁj C¥ÀuÁð ºÁUÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆ® §gÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ºÉÆqÀ§qÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUq À É ºÁQzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, CvÉÛ, £Á¢¤AiÀÄªÀg£ À ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß PÀg¬ À Ä¹ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CªÀg® É ègÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ ºÀZï.©üÃªÀÄgÉrØ, ªÉÊ. gÁªÀÄUÉÆÃ¥Á®gÉrØ gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀiÁr §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉÃ½gÀÄvÁÛg.É EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£À £À£Àß UÀAqÀ AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.JUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀU¼ À À £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.JUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©ð ü tÂAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ C°èUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ ¥Àw æ Ã¢£Á £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ £À£U À É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV EµÀÄÖ ªÀµð À UÀ¼ÁzÀgÀÆ ¤Ã£ÀÄ CqÀÄUÉ ZÀ£ÁßV ªÀiÁqÀ¯Áè ªÀÄ£ÉP® É ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀ¯Áè JAzÀÄ £À£U À É »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ¼ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉjUÉAiÀiÁV ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ d£Àä ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ CzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÁ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉwÛÃ¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ CªÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸ÁPÀ®Ä JµÀÄÖ RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £À£Àß ¸ÀA§¼À J¯Áè £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÃÉ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÀÄÝ £À£U À É RaðUÉ ¸ÀºÁ PÉÆqÀÄwÛg° À ¯Áè. £À£Àß CvÉÛ , ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £À°ègÀÄªÀ £Á¢¤ C¥ÀuÁð DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ, PÉ£q É Á zÉÃ±Àz° À ègÀÄªÀ £Á¢¤ VÃvÁPÀÄªÀiÁj ¥Àw æ Ã¢£À ¥ÉÆÃ£À ªÀiÁr £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ «ZÉÃÑ zÀ£É ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ

ºÉÃ½PÉÆqÀÄwÛ¢ÝgA À zÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ 2 ªÀµð À zÀ »AzÉ qÉÊªÀ¸ð À ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï£À°è ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Áè JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÝPÉÌ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ºÉÆ® §gÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á ¤£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ qÉÊªÀ¸ïð PÉÆqÀzA À vÉ ZÀ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ E£ÀÆß JµÀÄÖ ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÀt, D¹Û K£ÀÄ PÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀÝPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉ§qÉ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUq À É ºÁQzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.JzÀ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. FUÉÎ MAzÀÄ ªÀµð À ¢AzÀ PÉÆÃ«qï-19 jAzÀ £À£U À É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÉ®¸À E®èzÃÉ RaðUÉ ¸ÀºÁ ºÀt E®èzÃÉ vÀÄA¨Á PÀµÀÖ ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥Àw æ Ã¢£Á AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.J £À°ègÀÄªÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ £À£U À É qÉÊªÀ¸ïð PÉÆqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀ°è ¤£ÀUÉ E¯ÉèÃ MAzÀÄ UÀwPÁtÂ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzsÀÄ ºÉzj À ¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨sA À iÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ ºÀÄµÁj¯Áè JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ©lÄÖ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-12-2020 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ EArAiÀiÁUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

         PÁgÀt £À£U
                  À É          ºÉa£
                                  Ñ À ªÀgz
                                         À QÀ ëuA

É iÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀgÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤Ãr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉ§qÉ ªÀiÁr ¥Áæt ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ 1) ªÉAPÀlgÉrØ 36 ªÀµð À ªÁ¸À: AiÀÄÄJ¸ïJ CvÉÛ, 2) ¥ÀzÁäªw À UÀAqÀ ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄtgÉrØ, 60 ªÀµð À ºÁ° ªÁ¸À: ªÀÄzÀ£¥ À ° À è , avÀÆÛgÀÄ f¯Éè, £Á¢¤ UÀAqÀ 3) gÁeÁgÉrØ , 45 ªÀµð À ¸Á: ªÉÊmï¦Ã¯ïØ,

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. £Á¢¤ 4) C¥ÀuÁð UÀAqÀ gÁeÁgÉrØ, 39 ªÀµð À ¸Á: ªÉÊmï¦Ã¯ïØ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 5) VÃvÁPÀÄªÀiÁj, 42 ªÀµð À , ªÁ¸À:

PÉ£q À Á zÉÃ±À gÀªg À À «gÀÄzÀÝ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀª æ ÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä

PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ."

The narration in the complaint in its entirety is against the

husband. Mother-in-law and other members of the family

are said to have visited the couple when they were in USA.

All the allegations against the husband by the complainant

is concerning torture meted out to her at USA. The police

after investigation have filed the charge sheet. Column

No.17 of the charge sheet reads as follows:

"WÀ£À 4 £ÉÃ J¹eÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉJAJ¦üì £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, §¼Áîj gÀªg À À ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥q À ÀÄªÀ §¼Áîj £ÀUg À z À À £ÉÃvÁf £ÀUg À z À À ªÁ¹ ¸ÁQë 1 £ÀA¢¤ EªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13-10-2011 gÀAzÀÄ avÀÆÛgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀwÛªÁj¥Á®åA ªÁ¹ ªÉAPÀlgÉrØ gÀªg À ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀgz À ÀQëuA É iÀiÁV 10 ®PÀë ºÀt, ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ 10 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ 4 ¢£ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªg À ÀÄ F zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥Àvz Àæ À PÁ®A £ÀA:12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ UÀAqÀ C¥Á¢vÀ 1 ªÉAPÀlgÉrØ gÀªg À ÉÆA¢UÉ AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.JUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£À ZÀ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ

D¥Á¢vÀ 1 FvÀ£ÀÄ vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁzÀ D-2 ¥ÀzÁäªw À , ¨ÁªÀ DzÀ D-3 gÁeÁgÉrØ CPÀÌA¢AiÀÄgÁzÀ C-4 C¥ÀuÁð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D-5 VÃvÁPÀÄªÀiÁj gÀªg À À ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªj À UÉ ¤£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀ¯Áè ¤Ã£ÀÄ qÉ¸ æ ïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ºÁPÀ¯Áè , D¥Á¢vÀ 2 jAzÀ 5 gÀªg À ÉÆA¢UÉ ¥Àw æ Ã¢£À ¥ÉÆÃ£Àß°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è wAzÀÄ PÀÆvÀgÃÉ ºÉÃUÉ ¤£Àß£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ ºÀt PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªg À À vÀAzÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë 4 ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt gÉrØ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªg À ÀÄ PÀµÀÖ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzA É zÀÄ ªÀµð À PÉÌ gÀÆ. 10 ®PÀëzA À vÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß D-1 gÀªg À À ¨ÁªÀ DzÀ D¥Á¢vÀ 3 gÁeÁgÉrØ gÀªj À UÉ PÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ C®èzÃÉ D-3 gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªj À UÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÀt PÉÆqÀzÃÉ EzÀÝ°è ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀÄÄJ¸ïJ£À°è PÀµÀÖ ¥ÀqÀÄvÁÛ¼A É zÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÁQë 4 gÀªj À AzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgU É É gÀÆ.50 ®PÀë ºÀt ¥Àq¢ É zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªg À ÀÄ 2013 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À £ÀªA À §gï wAUÀ¼° À è ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Ázï PÀÆPÀmï ¥À°èAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ D¥Á¢vÀ 5 gÀªg À À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ 4 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ C¯ÉèÃ EzÁÝUÀ D¥Á¢vÀ 1 jAzÀ 5 gÀªg À ® É ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªj À UÉ ºÉa£ Ñ À ªÀgz À QÀ ëuA É iÀiÁV ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆ® §gÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr ºÉÆqÀ§qÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUq À É ºÁQzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªg À ÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ï AiÀÄÄJ¸ïJ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀ©ð ü tÂAiÀiÁV ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ d£Àä ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ CzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÁ D¥Á¢vÀg® É ègÀÆ ºÉtÄÚ

ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ d£Àä ¤Ãr¢ÝAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªj À UÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªg À ÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj zÀÄrAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ DPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§¼À ¸ÀºÁ D-1 vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÀÄÝ D¥Á¢vÀ 2 jAzÀ 5 gÀªg À ÀÄ D¥Á¢vÀ-1 FvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªj À UÉ «ZÉÑÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£Àß°è ºÉÃ½PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ FUÉÎ 2 ªÀµð À UÀ¼À D-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªj À UÉ «ZÉÃÑ zÀ£É ¥Àvz Àæ ° À è ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉÆ®§gÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄUÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUq À É ºÁQzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªg À À vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ AiÀÄÄJ¸ïJ£À°è ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁV ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ D-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¥Àw æ Ã¢£À ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªg À À ªÀÄ£É ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV £À£U À É «ZÉÃÑ zÀ£É PÉÆqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀ°è ¤£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀwPÁtÂ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªg À ÀÄ ºÉzj À PÉÆAqÀÄ EArAiÀiÁUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï §A¢zÀÄÝ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ zsÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛz.É D¥Á¢vÀ 1 ªÉAPÀlgÉrØ gÀªg À ÀÄ AiÀÄÄJ¸ïJ zÉÃ±Àz° À è ºÁUÀÆ D¥Á¢vÀ 5) VÃvÁPÀÄªÀiÁj gÀªg À ÀÄ PÉ£q À Á zÉÃ±Àz° À è EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè. PÁgÀt ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ D¥Á¢vÀgÀ 1 gÀªg À À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A 498(J-)504-323-

506 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3-4 r¦ DPïÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D-2 jAzÀ 5 gÀªg À À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A: 498(J-)504-323-506-109 gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3-4 r¦ DPïÖ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼£ À ÀéAiÀÄ

zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥Àvª Àæ £ À Àß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÉ."

Even in the said summary of the charge sheet the entire

narration or allegation is against the husband. Therefore,

it is a case where the allegations are only against the

husband and other members of the family are dragged into

the web of criminal proceedings. But even against the

husband none of the incidents has happened in India and

all the allegations that are made by the complainant

against the husband while registering the complaint

happened outside India viz., USA. It is not that the

husband cannot be prosecuted in this country for offences

that have been committed outside the country. It can be

done only by following the procedure stipulated under the

Cr.P.C. Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. deals with offences

committed outside India and reads as follows:

"188. Offence committed outside India.-- When an offence is committed outside India -

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,

he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government."

In terms of Section 188 trial cannot commence against the

accused for offences committed outside India unless there

is a previous sanction from the Central Government.

Interpreting Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. a three Judge Bench

of the Apex Court in the case of THOTA VENKATESWARLU v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER - (2011) 90 SCC

527 has held as follows:

"9. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as will appear from the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh on 22nd March, 2007, no grounds had been made out therein to continue with the proceedings in India, having regard to the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C., which provides as follows :-

"188. Offence committed outside India - When an offence is committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India. he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government."

10. Learned counsel urged that Section 188 Cr.P.C. recognizes that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he would have to be dealt with as if such offence had been committed in any place within India at which he may be found. Learned counsel, however, laid stress on the proviso which indicates that no such offence could be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government [Emphasis Supplied]. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of an offence committed outside India, the same could not be proceeded with without

previous sanction of the Central Government and that, accordingly, even if any of the offences was allegedly committed inside India, trial in respect of the same could continue, but the trial in respect of the offences committed outside India could not be continued, without the previous sanction of the Central Government.

11. On behalf of the Respondents it was urged that a part of the alleged offences relating to the Dowry Prohibition Act did appear to have arisen in India, even at the initial stage when various articles, including large sums of cash and jewellery were given in dowry by the father of the Respondent No.2. It was submitted that since a part of the cause of action had arisen in India on account of alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1968, the learned Magistrate trying the said complaint could also try the other offences alleged to have been committed outside India along with the said offences.Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 609], wherein it had been held that obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government was not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences, since sanction could be obtained before trial begins.

12. The question which we have been called upon to consider in this case is whether in respect of a series of 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 Cr.P.C?

13. From the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 in the present case, it is clear that the cases relating to alleged offences under Section 498-A and 506 I.P.C. had been committed outside India in Botswana, where the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 were residing. At best it may be said that the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in India and could, therefore, be tried by the Courts in India without having to obtain the previous sanction of the Central Government. However, we are still left with the question as to whether in cases where the offences are alleged to have been committed outside India, any previous sanction is required to be taken by the prosecuting agency, before the trial can commence?

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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. It may also be indicated that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof. Accordingly, offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C."

The said judgment is followed in a recent order passed by

the Apex Court in NERELLA CHIRANJEEVI ARUN KUMAR v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER -

S.L.P.No.3978 of 2021 decided on 2-08-2021, wherein the

Apex Court holds as follows:

"This Special Leave Petition is filed against an order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged offences were committed in the USA and in accordance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C sanction from the Central Government is required even for initiation of investigation of the crime. This Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. Tr.Principal

Secretary & Anr. reported in 2011 (9) SCC 527 categorically held that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by a citizen of India outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance. However, this Court makes it clear that the trial of the criminal case cannot commence without sanction being accorded under Section 188 Cr.P.C.

IN view of the aforesaid findings recorded by this Court in Thota Venkateswarly (supra), we do not deem it proper to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.

Needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground pertaining to sanction before the commencement of the trial."

In the light of the judgments quoted hereinabove every

procedure can be continued against the husband except

conduct of trial without previous sanction of the Central

Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court has

clearly held that the ground pertaining to sanction can be

raised before commencement of trial. In the case at hand

charge sheets have been filed against the husband and

others. Charges are yet to be framed and trial is yet to

commence. Therefore, the proceedings against the

husband cannot be quashed as the complaint clearly

indicates torture meted out to her. It is for the husband to

come out clean in the trial but the trial can commence only

after compliance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore,

while declining to entertain the petition filed by the

husband/petitioner, the Criminal Petition No.101548 of

2021 stands disposed of with a direction to continue the

trial subject to compliance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C.

7. All the other petitions are by other members of the

family viz., (i) one by the mother-in-law, (2) two by sister-

in-laws who live in abroad and (3) one by the sister-in-law

and her husband who live at Bangalore. The complaint

(supra) or even summary of the charge sheet in terms of

Column No.17 thereof nowhere indicates any semblance of

offence committed by the petitioners in all these cases. The

mother-in-law who had travelled to USA once is alleged to

have spoken badly to the complainant. The sister-in-laws

live in Canada. The other sister-in-law and husband live in

Bangalore. At no point in time they have visited or stayed

with the couple. The allegation in the complaint is that they

were instigating the husband to treat the complainant

rudely. This can hardly be said to satisfy ingredients of

Section 498A of the IPC insofar as it pertains to other

members of the family. The other allegations against the

petitioners in these cases are offences punishable under

Sections 504, 323 and 34 of the IPC. Section 323 deals

with assault. If the petitioners in these cases were not even

residing with the couple, the question of assault would not

arise. Even criminal intimidation is an imaginary charge

that is laid against other members of the family.

8. It is needless to observe that it has now become

an habit by the complainants to drag every other member

of the family to the case even though they do not reside

with the couple. In cases where the other members of the

family they do not reside in the country, without rhyme or

reason they are dragged into the web of criminal

proceedings in a squabble that is between the wife and

husband. If there are allegations of overt-act particularly

brought out in the complaints, the circumstance is

altogether different. Making vague and wild allegations

without indicating, what is the overt-act, other members of

the family are dragged in. This is a classic case where the

family members who stay outside the country are also

dragged into these proceedings which a clear misuse of the

provisions and abuse of the process of law. Therefore

permitting trial to go on against these petitioners would

without doubt degenerate into harassment and result in

miscarriage of justice. The view of mine in this regard is

fortified by the latest judgment of the Apex Court rendered

in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 disposed of on 8-02-

2022 wherein it is held as follows:

"Issue Involved

"11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against

the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention.

However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-

"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of

the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."

14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273, it was also observed:-

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non- bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand- mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it

would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."

16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and

terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:-

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against 12 either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as

i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is 13 distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."

In the light of facts obtaining in the case at hand and the

judgment rendered by the Apex Court as aforesaid, I deem

it appropriate to exercise my inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate all proceedings in

Criminal Petition Nos. 101549 of 2021, 101966 of 2021,

101985 of 2021.

9. For the reasons stated above, I make the

following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition No.101548 of 2021 is disposed of subject to the condition that trial shall commence against the petitioner- accused No.1 only after compliance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C.

(ii) Criminal Petition Nos.101549 of 2021, 101966 of 2021, 101985 of 2021 are allowed and the proceedings against those petitioners in C.C.No.539 of 2021 before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Ballari stand quashed insofar as the petitioners in these petitions are concerned.

(ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order while allowing Criminal Petition Nos. 101549 of 2021, 101966 of 2021, 101985 of 2021 are only for considering their respective cases. The trial Court shall not be bound or influenced by the observations made in the course of

the order in the proceedings against accused No.1/husband of the complainant.

SD JUDGE CLK