Telangana High Court

Mr.Sriramiseshayya Chavali vs State Of Ap., Another on 23 August, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                      CRL.P.No.2591 OF 2014

ORDER:

This petition is directed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking

to quash the proceedings against petitioner/A-1 in C.C.No.570 of

2014 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,

Malkajgiri.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. None represented

the second respondent. Perused the material on record.

3. The second respondent herein gave a complaint to police

against the petitioner/A-1 and another alleging offence under

Section. 498-A IPC. A case in Cr.No.838 of 2012 was registered

by Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad District and after

investigation filed charge sheet before the Court and the learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same in C.C.No.570 of

2014.

4. According to the second respondent, her marriage with A-1

was solemnized on 18.10.2012 and after the marriage, they stayed 2 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

for few days at Vizag and after that they went to Chennai for Visa

process and during this period A-1 harassed her mentally and

physically. A-2 who is the sister of A-1 sent e-mail to A-1

picturing that the second respondent is a bad wife and warned him

to keep her at a distance. On 02.11.2008 the second respondent

and her husband A-1 went to United States of America (U.S.A) and

there at the instigation of A-2, A-1 started ill-treating and

humiliating her. The petitioner/A-1 used to compare the second

respondent with his sister and finding fault for leading the life as a

Home maker. He also used to force her to have liquor and she bore

the harassment in the hands of the petitioner and A-2. It is further

alleged that on one occasion when she tried to call her cousin, A-1

beat her. A-2 instigated the petitioner to harass the second

respondent and to separate from the petitioner. On 12.11.2011 the

petitioner brought her to India along with A-2 and the second

respondent joined her parents at the airport and the petitioner and

A-2 went to Visakapatnam. Thereafter, the second respondent did

not receive phone calls from them. It is further alleged that the 3 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

petitioner and A-2 want to get rid of her and trying to perform

another marriage and extract huge dowry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations

of the charge sheet, prima facie, do not make out any of the

ingredients of the offence. He further submits that the alleged

offence took place in the U.S.A. not within the territory of India.

As per Section 188 Cr.P.C. no such offence can be enquired into or

tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central

Government. In support of his contentions, he relied on the

judgment of Thota Venkateswalu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

through Principal Secretary1.

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits

that the allegations of the F.I.R. and charge sheet clearly attract the

alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

7. A perusal of the allegations of F.I.R/charge sheet disclose

that after their marriage on 08.10.2011 the petitioner and the

second respondent stayed at Vizag and after that they went to

1 (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527 4 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

Chennai for Visa process. Subsequently, on 02.11.2008, they left

U.S.A. The second respondent made allegations that the petitioner

is an alcoholic and he is in the nature of violently abusing her and

used to compare her with her with his sister who is an employee

and she was leading life of Home maker. The most of the

allegations are revolving round A-2. At the instance of A-2, the

petitioner used to harass her. Subsequently on 12.11.2011 after

three years they came back to India and she went to her parents

house and the petitioner and A-2 went to Vizag and after that there

is no communication between them.

8. There are two aspects need to be examined in this case.

Firstly, whether the allegations, prima facie, constitute any offence,

much less, the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A IPC are

made out or not and if the said offence is made out, secondly,

whether, it was committed outside India or during their stay in

India.

9. Coming to the present case, the marriage of parties held on

18.10.2008 and they went to U.S.A. on 02.11.2008 and they lived

at U.S.A. for about three years. The allegations of the charge sheet 5 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

and F.I.R. do not constitute prima facie, any offence or make out

case against the petitioner. The allegations are vague. There is no

specific allegation to show that the second respondent was

subjected to cruelty to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for

any property or valuable security and there was harassment nor

there is any willful conduct to cause grave injury or danger to life,

limb or health. It appears that none of the essential ingredients of

offence are stated in the charge-sheet and the F.I.R.

10. Apart from the above, undisputedly, soon after the marriage

the second respondent and the petitioner left to U.S.A. and stayed

there for three years and returned to India. Immediately, she went

to her parents house and subsequently, there is no communication

between her and the petitioner. Therefore, even if the allegations

of the F.I.R. and charge sheet, for a moment, have taken at their

face value and accepted and even they constitute any offence,

much less, the alleged offence, the said offence is committed

outside India. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that even if any offence is allegedly committed outside 6 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

India, the trial could not be continued without previous sanction of

the Central Government.

11. It is relevant here to extract the ingredients of Section

188 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

Section 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."

12. The provisions of 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.

The trial in respect of the offences committed outside India could

not be continued without previous sanction of the Central

Government. Admittedly, there is no sanction obtained from the

Central Government at the time of laying charge sheet. However, 7 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

the Apex Court in Ajay Aggarwal v.Union of India2 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 the trial begins. Though the

facts and circumstances contemplate for sanction of the Central

Government was necessary, in this case, at this stage on the said

ground as the necessary sanction is not obtained, the proceedings

cannot be quashed. However, the allegations of F.I.R. and charge

sheet and other material on record would specifically indicate that

they do not prima facie disclose commission of alleged offence and

make out case against the petitioner.

13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3 the Apex court at

para Nos.102 and 103 held as under:-

"In the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or

2 (1993) 3 SCC 609 3 (1992) Suppl.1 SCC P.335 8 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the 9 ASR,J Crlp_2591_2014

extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

14. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered

in the background of legal principles stated above, I am of the view

that there are no prima facie specific allegations in the averments

of the complaint, F.I.R. and charge sheet and the statements of the

witnesses to proceed against the petitioner. As such, it would be

unfair to compel the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of the trial.

Therefore, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers

of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings

against the petitioner/A-1.

15. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and further

proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 in C.C.No.570 of 2014, on