Telangana High Court
Damayanthi Vemuri And Another vs Vemuri Soujanya And Another on 9 March, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1507 and 3175 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
1. Since the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions are
seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.134
of 2019 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally,
Cyberabad, under the provisions of Section 498-A, 406 and
506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, they
are being heard together and disposed off by way of this
Common Order.
2. Petitioner/A1 is the husband in Criminal Petition
No.3175 of 2021 and the petitioners/A2 and A3 are the
parents-in-law of the 1st respondent in Criminal Petition
No.1507 of 2021.
3. Briefly, the case of the 1st respondent is that she is the
wife of A1. She was married to A1 on 21.08.2013. An
expenditure of Rs.50.00 lakhs was incurred at the time of
marriage. The husband and her in-laws started harassing her
for various reasons. Money was demanded from her salary and
an amount of Rs.2.00 Crores was withdrawn without the
knowledge of the 1st respondent. She was ridiculed for her
traditional way of life and forced to go to pub. Sister-in-law
and the mother-in-law of the 1st respondent threatened her
that if she does not modernize herself, she would be given
divorce by A1. Mother-in-law went to US where A1 and 1st
respondent were staying and she bore grudge against the 1st
respondent for not treating her properly. The relatives of A1
and also the parents-in-law were playing mind games with
her, for which reason, there were differences most of the times
between A1 and the 1st respondent. Once the 2nd respondent
called the Phoenix Police for help. Thereafter A1 brought her to
India stating that they have to go for stamping. However, the
1st respondent was taken to her mother's house and left there.
Thereafter, divorce petition was filed by A1. Aggrieved by such
conduct of A1 to A3, the 1st respondent filed compliant on
30.03.2019 with Women Police Station, Gachibowli and same
was investigated and charge sheet was filed.
4. Sri T.Padyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that even according to the allegations in
the complaint, all the alleged instances have taken place in the
USA, for which reason, criminal complaint cannot be filed here
in India. In the event of complaint being filed, the Court is
prohibited from taking cognizance of such complaint unless
there is a sanction given by the Central Government as
required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. He further argued that
in fact, in the Divorce Petition filed by A1/husband, in her
counter, she stated as follows:
"26. Thus there is no cause of action for filing this case at any point of
time and this Hon'ble Court at any rate has no jurisdiction to try the
case as all the incidents alleged to have occurred in USA and that the
petitioner is not entitled to seek divorce on any legally valid grounds and
hence this petition is liable to be dismissed."
5. On the said basis, learned Senior Counsel would submit
that even according to the 1st respondent, all the incidents have
taken place in the USA and the Courts at Hyderabad did not
have jurisdiction. When such is the claim, it is apparent that
the police had to take sanction of the Central Government in
prosecuting these petitioners. Accordingly, cognizance taken by
the Court below i.e. V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally,
Cyberabad is bad in law and the proceedings have to be
quashed against A1 to A3. In support of his contentions he
relied on the following judgments; i) Thota Venkateswarlu v.
State of Andhra Pradesh [(2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527].
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar
situation held that the offences alleged to have taken place in
the US, the proceedings cannot be continued in the absence of
the sanction of the Central Government as required under
Section 188 of Cr.P.C. However, for the other offences, the trial
was directed to continue; He further relied on decisions of this
Court in i) Criminal Petition No.8496 of 2017, dated
17.06.2022; ii) Criminal Petition No.6711 of 2019, dated
18.10.2022; iii) Criminal Petition No.2173 of 2016 dated
04.02.2022; iv) Criminal Petition No.7299 of 2018, dated
05.09.2022 and v) Criminal Petition No.2591 of 2014, dated
23.08.2022.
6. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the
marriage had taken place in Hyderabad and also dowry was
given. Even prior to proceeding to US, there are allegations of
harassment and after coming from US also, the 1st respondent
did not have any other option, but to stay with her parents.
Thereafter, aggrieved by the conduct of the
petitioners/accused, she was forced to file complaint in India
and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. The marriage of the 1st respondent and A1 was performed
in Hyderabad. At the time of marriage there was demand for
15000 USD and thereafter more than Rs.2.00 Crores was also
taken from the account of the 1st respondent. She was
humiliated for various reasons. After she went to US also, there
were differences between the 1st respondent and A1. According
to 1st respondent, she was brought back to India after she filed
a complaint with the police department in Phoenix, on the
ground that they have to go for stamping. However, the 1st
respondent was taken to her mother's house and left there by
A1. The allegations made in the present complaint are both in
India and thereafter in US. On the pretext of stamping, the 1st
respondent was brought back to India and left at her mother's
house. The offence in the present case is continuing offence
and the alleged harassment continued during her stay in the
US and also when she was brought back to India and left at
her mother's place. It cannot be said that all the events of
beating etc., had taken place in the US, for which reason there
is no necessity for the police to obtain sanction as required
under Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
8. For the sake of convenience Section 188 of Cr.P.C is
extracted hereunder:
"188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-
by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
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 com- mitted 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."
9. There cannot be any dispute that for an offence which is
committed outside India and when prosecuted within Indian
Territory, previous sanction of the Central Government is
necessary for enquiry and also for trial. It is mandatory that
the police obtain sanction of the Central Government to both
investigate/enquire into the matter or commit the case for trial
before the competent Court. In the present case the offence is
a continuing offence as the incidents have taken place both in
the US and also in India. Section 178 of Cr.P.C reads as
follows:
"178. Place of inquiry or trial:
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
where an offence is committed, partly in one local area and partly in another, or
where an offence, is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas
than one, or
where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by
a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."
10. In the present facts when the offence is continuing one,
the local Court in Hyderabad has the jurisdiction to try the
offence. Though part of the alleged harassment was in the US,
it does not require sanction by the Central Government in view
of the continuity of the offence. Since transactions have taken
place in Hyderabad also which amounts to cruelty, in
accordance with section 178 of CrPC, the local court i.e., V
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, where the
case is being tried can be proceed with trial and sanction
would not be necessary under Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
11. As far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, who are the
parents-in-law of the 1st respondent, the allegations appear to
be vague in nature for the reason of the 1st respondent stating
that the petitioners were complicit of harassing her and it was
at the instance of A2 and A3, A1 subjected her to cruelty.
12. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of
Bihar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless
there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused,
the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives
who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus
allegations.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta
v. State of Jharkhand (supra) held that the Courts have to
scrutinize the allegations made with great care and
circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who
were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed
with the couple.
14. In the said circumstances, I do not find any valid reason
to continue the proceedings against in-law's/A2 and A3.
15. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners /A2 and
A3 in C.C.No.134 of 2019 V Additional Junior Civil Judge-
cum-XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Kukatpally, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed. However, the trial
Court shall proceed against A1.
16. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.1507 of 2021 is allowed
and Criminal Petition No.3175 of 2021 is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 09.03.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Crl.P.Nos.3175 and 1507 of 2021
Dated: 09.03.2023
kvs
