Telangana High Court
Doppalapudi Syamsundara Babu vs State Of Telangana And Another on 20 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10104 OF 2022
Between:
Doppalapudi Syamsundara Babu ...Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana through
Public Prosecutor, High Court for the
State of Telangana and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.02.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals
Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 10104 of 2022
% Dated 20.02.2023
# Doppalapudi Syamsundara Babu ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana through
Public Prosecutor, High Court for the
State of Telangana and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Papaiah Peddakula
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri J.C.Francis for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10104 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.451 of 2017 on the
file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the 1st respondent - State and Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent.
3. The 2nd respondent filed complaint stating that she was
married to the petitioner on 30.10.2014. The marriage was on
grand scale and the parents of the 2nd respondent gave gold
ornaments and other gifts, which were given to this petitioner and
his parents. Petitioner was living in US and after marriage, the 2nd
respondent joined him in the US. Petitioner started harassing the
2nd respondent for Rs.15 lakhs to repay debts and she was
compelled to lead a secluded life in the US. There were no
acquaintances nor communication was permitted by the petitioner
and over a period of time in the US, she was not even permitted to
go to Church on Sundays and her communication with her friends
and relatives were restricted.
4. There are several acts of harassment, which are narrated that
have taken place in the US. The 2nd respondent delivered a male
child in the US. Thereafter, she came back to India and started
living with her father, mother and her son. Petitioner tortured the
complainant physically and mentally during the period of her stay
in the USA. After coming to India also she was harassed for
additional dowry, for which reason, she filed the complaint.
Jewellery that was given at the time of marriage and after the
marriage was also misappropriated. On the basis of the complaint,
the Court has taken cognizance of the complaint against the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 420
of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this
Court by order dated 09.04.2021 in Criminal Petition No.12254 of
2017 had quashed the proceedings against A2 and A3, who are
parents-in-law. Further, all the major allegations that are leveled
against this petitioner are in the US, for which reason there is
restriction imposed from taking cognizance unless the Central
Government grants sanction.
6. Section 188 of the Cr.P.C 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."
For the reason of there being no sanction, the cognizance
taken by the learned Magistrate ignoring the provision under
Section 188 of Cr.P.C has to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent would submit that though the alleged harassment has
taken place in US, the marriage was held in Hyderabad and
subsequent to the 2nd respondent returning from US, she was
staying in Hyderabad, for which reason, there is no necessity of
obtaining sanction as required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. He
further argued that there has to be some evidence that has been
collected outside India to enable grant of sanction by the Central
Government. For the said reason, the proceedings against this
petitioner have to be continued.
8. The offence under Section 498-A of IPC is continuing offence.
Admittedly, the marriage had taken place in Hyderabad and she
was compelled to return back to India along with her son. The acts
of the petitioner herein in continuously harassing the 2nd
respondent and the 2nd respondent allegedly coming back to India
unable to bear the harassment would amount to the offence taking
place in Hyderabad also. The wife is forced to stay in Hyderabad as
a consequence of harassment by husband in the USA. Her forced
stay in her parents' house, in the said circumstances, is
continuation of cruelty meted out on her.
9. Though the divorce was ultimately granted in the year 2022,
it cannot be said that the proceedings against this petitioner are
vitiated. In the said circumstances, when the 2nd respondent was
forced to live in Hyderabad after being subjected to cruelty in the
US, it cannot be said that the entire offence had taken place within
the jurisdiction of US and there is a requirement of sanction from
the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. In such
circumstances, when harassment is alleged against the husband in
a foreign country and consequently, the wife is forced to return to
India and stays in India, does not mean that the husband inflicting
cruelty in the US only has to be considered and for the said reason
sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C has to be obtained.
10. For the aforesaid reasons of continuation of harassment of
the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that there is no necessity for
obtaining sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. There are no
merits in the petition.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous
applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:20.02.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10104 OF 2022
Dt. 20.02.2023
kvs
