Telangana High Court
Dubbudu Ramakanth Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6110 OF 2022
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6074 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER
These two Criminal Petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.1873 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy.
Accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant, i.e.,
respondent No.2 herein, while accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of
accused No.1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceedings in
C.C.No.1873 of 2022.
2. Brief facts as stated in the complaint leading to the filing of the
present quash petitions are that the de facto complainant and accused
No.1 were both working in USA on employment Visa. On 03.10.2014,
in the presence of the parents of both the parties, their marriage was
performed at New Jersey, USA as per Hindu customs. The authority,
officer of the Bergan County, New Jersey has attended the marriage and
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
issued a marriage certificate on 07.10.2014 and the marriage was
consummated at USA. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with
a son on 08.06.2016. Subsequently, the parents of accused No.1, i.e.,
accused Nos.2 and 3, visited accused No.1 and the de facto complainant
at USA and stayed there for 5 months and they returned to India
thereafter. It is submitted that the de facto complainant came to India in
February, 2020 along with her brother and accused No.1 to celebrate the
retirement function of her mother Smt. A.Bharathi. On the date of her
return from India, there was an altercation between the de facto
complainant and accused No.1 and thereafter, the couple returned to
USA on 21.03.2020. Alleging that (i) accused Nos.1 to 3 have
demanded cash, gold and other articles towards dowry at the time of the
marriage; and that (ii) accused No.1 was consuming alcohol heavily and
used to pick up quarrels and beat her on 16.02.2016; and that (iii) during
their stay at USA, accused Nos.2 and 3 have demanded for additional
dowry; and that (iv) the complainant has given cash to accused No.1,
who promised to purchase some properties in the name of the
complainant but the same were purchased in the name of the accused,
the father of the de facto complainant, as a GPA holder of the
complainant, lodged a police complaint in India on 15.12.2021 and the
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
same was registered as Crime No.494 of 2021 on the file of Women
Police Station, Rachakonda District under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and
506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. The police took up investigation and have filed
charge sheet vide C.C.No.1873 of 2022 against accused Nos.1 to 3.
3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have now filed the present quash petitions
stating that the complaint by the de facto complainant could not have
been filed through her GPA holder, but the police, without verifying the
same and in a mechanical manner, entertained the said complaint and
registered the case and have even filed the charge sheet thereafter, which
is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings
pending against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. It is submitted
that from the incident of marriage to the alleged incidents of consuming
alcohol and beating the de facto complainant and alleged demands of
additional dowry have all allegedly taken place in USA and therefore,
no incidents have taken place in India, on the basis of which the
complaint lodged at Hyderabad can be entertained against the petitioners
herein. It is further submitted that though, in the charge sheet it was
referred that on 21.03.2020, the accused abused respondent No.2 at
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
Hyderabad, at no point of time has the respondent No.2 submitted any
complaint to the police or to the elders with regard to the alleged
incident. It is submitted that it is after 21 months of the said incident that
respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint at Hyderabad and
therefore, there is abnormal delay in submitting the report to the police
which itself shows falsity of the complaint. It is submitted that
respondent No.2 has filed the complaint with bald and baseless
allegations without any reference to any specific overt acts and for this
reason also, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that
when the allegations against the petitioners do not constitute the
offences as alleged against the petitioners, continuation of the
proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law and
therefore are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that since
January, 2021 respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were living separately
and therefore, the question of accused No.1, abusing her does not arise
and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners herein on the
strength of such baseless allegations are liable to be quashed. It is
submitted that for the de facto complainant, this is the third marriage
and for accused No.1, it is the second marriage and the earlier marriage
of the de facto complainant had also ended in a complaint filed by her
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
against the husband alleging the offences under Sections 406, 420 and
498A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the
said marriage was dissolved in USA through Court decree and therefore,
it is clear that the de facto complainant is a habitual litigant and is in the
habit of filing false cases against her husband and in-laws. Even with
regard to the alleged sole incident in India, it was only with regard to the
accusation of the extra marital affair of accused No.1 and was not in any
way related to the alleged harassment for additional dowry and
therefore, it does not constitute the offence as alleged. It is further
submitted that accused No.1 has filed a divorce case against the de facto
complainant in USA and as a counter blast case, respondent No.2 has
filed the present case in India. It is submitted that under Section 188 of
Cr.P.C., where an offence involving an Indian citizen is committed
outside India, the trial should not be proceeded with without the
previous sanction of the Central Government. It is submitted that in this
case, no such sanction has been obtained by the police and hence the
case proceedings have to be quashed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy,
representing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
has reiterated the above submissions and has also placed reliance upon
the following decisions in support of the above contentions.
(1) Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and
another 1.
(2) Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2.
(3) Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and another 3.
(4) Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through
Principal Secretary and another 4.
(5) Thotapally Sai Prasanna Kumar Vs. The State of Telangana
through Station House Officer, PS Subedari, Warangal 5.
(6) Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department 6.
5. On behalf of the de facto complainant, learned Senior Counsel
Sri D. Prakash Reddy representing Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel,
has appeared and submitted that though the marriage and other incidents
have admittedly happened in USA, there was one incident of demand for
(2015) 7 SCC 423
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3392
(2011) 9 SCC 527
Crl.P.2173 of 2016 dt.04.02.2022
W.P.No.41432 of 2018 dt.16.03.2020
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
additional dowry in India when the de facto complainant and accused
No.1 visited India in the month of March, 2020 and even if one incident
has happened in India, there is no requirement of obtaining previous
sanction of the Central Government to proceed with the trial. He
therefore submitted that there are no grounds for quashing of the
proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned Senior Counsel
has also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his
contentions.
(1) Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana
Reddy 7.
(2) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. 8
(3) Pramod RS Vs. State of Karnataka through
Lakshmipuram Police Station Ref. by State Public
Prosecutor 9.
(4) Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and others 10.
(5) Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
through Principal Secretary and another (4 supra).
(6) Sartaj Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand 11
(2011) 12 SCC 437
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379
2023 SCC OnLine Kar 26 : (2023) 4 Kant LJ 613
(1993) 3 SCC 609
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the legal ground raised in these quash
petitions is that previous sanction of the Central Government has to be
obtained before proceeding with the trial of the subject case in India
under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., and for failure to do so, the proceedings
are liable to be quashed. Therefore, in order to ascertain the legal
position, it is necessary to reproduce the said provision as under:
"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 any 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."
7. Admittedly, in this case, accused No.1 is a citizen of India and
was residing in USA when accused No.1 and respondent No.2 herein
have performed their marriage and have lived in USA and were blessed
2022 SCC OnLine SC 360
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
with one child, who was also born in USA and they were also ultimately
granted divorce in USA. Therefore, it is clear that all the alleged
offences have been committed in USA except for one instance which
allegedly happened in India. Thus, it has to be examined as to whether
the provisions of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. would apply in this case. The
law interpreted by the Courts in the precedents relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the
respondents is as under:-
8. In the case of Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another (4 supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no previous sanction would be
required from the Central Government in terms of the Proviso to Section
188 of Cr.P.C., where an offence is committed outside India by an
Indian Citizen up to the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, but the
trial cannot be proceeded with beyond cognizance stage without such
previous sanction from the Central Government. Further, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that in respect of offences committed in India,
the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offence
alleged to have been committed in India but shall not proceed with the
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
trial in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed outside
India without prior sanction of Central Government as envisaged in the
Proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
9. In Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department (6 supra), the learned Single
Judge of this Court, after considering the provisions of Section 188 of
Cr.P.C. and also the orders of this Court in the case of Rajesh Gutta
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 12 as well as the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Venkateswarlu Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another
(4 supra), has held that where the alleged offences have occurred outside
India, the proceedings cannot be conducted without obtaining the prior
approval of the Government of India. Similar decision was rendered in
the case of Thotapally Sai Prasanna Kumar Vs. The State of
Telangana through Station House Officer, PS Subedari, Warangal
(5 supra).
10. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the de facto complainant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(2011) 1 ALD (Crl.) 885 (AP)
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana
Reddy (7 supra) has held that the High Court, while exercising power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., need not analyse each and every aspect of
the case meticulously before trial to find out whether the case would end
in conviction or acquittal, but it would suffice if it exercised its inherent
powers only in a case in which the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. He submitted that in the
case before this Court, in the complaint given by the de facto
complainant, the allegations are given in detail along with the specific
dates of incidents and therefore, this Court should not interfere under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. In the case of Pramod RS Vs. State of Karnataka through
Lakshmipuram Police Station Ref. By State Public Prosecutor (9
supra), it was held that when the matter is at the stage of investigation,
quashment of proceedings against the petitioner/husband would not arise
on the ground that the complaint is registered immediately after receipt
of the legal notice caused by the petitioner. It was observed that only on
the ground that the complaint is filed after receipt of notice of divorce
from the hands of the husband, the criminal case cannot be quashed and
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
hence the learned Senior Counsel for the de facto complainant submitted
that the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone.
12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also
relied upon the very same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through
Principal Secretary and another (4 supra) to submit that even if one
incident has occurred in India, there was no requirement to take previous
sanction from the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., for
trial of all the other incidents outside India. He submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while analysing the provisions of Section 188
of Cr.P.C., has held that the Section gets attracted only when the entirety
of offence is committed outside India and previous sanction would
enable such offence to be enquired into and tried in India and where a
part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country
and as such going with normal principle, the offence could be looked
into and tried by Indian Courts and since the offence was not committed
in its entirety outside India, the matter would not come within the scope
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. and there was no necessity of any sanction as
mandated by the Proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
13. Having regard to the above submissions of both the parties as
well as the precedents on the issue cited by the parties, it is clear that
only the offence which is committed in India by an Indian Citizen can
be tried in India and no sanction of the Central Government for the same
is required, but when the offences are allegedly committed outside India
by a citizen of India, then previous sanction of the Central Government
is required for the trial to commence. In the case on hand, except for the
sole incident or allegation of an altercation between the husband and
wife, i.e., the de facto complainant and accused No.1 in India, there are
no other allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 of having committed
the same in India. After going through the complaint of the de facto
complainant, a copy of which is filed in the petition papers, it is noticed
that in February, 2020, the de facto complainant and her husband had
come to India and on 21/22.03.2020 intervening night, there was an
altercation in respect of the extra marital affair of accused No.1 with
another woman who was residing in USA. However, there is also an
allegation that at that point of time, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
demanded additional dowry, immediately after the recital of the same,
the de facto complainant has given the details of the money given by her
and her parents to the petitioners and as to how the money has been
spent for purchase of properties in the name of accused No.1 and not in
the name of the de facto complainant. Therefore, the alleged incident
which has happened in India also did not make out the case of alleged
offences. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the de facto
complainant that even if one incident has occurred in India, then
previous sanction of the Central Government is not necessary, is not in
accordance with law. If the petitioners were to be tried for any of the
offences in India, it can only be in respect of the incident that has
happened in India on 21/22.03.2020 for the altercation between the
complainant and accused No.1 and his parents, i.e., accused Nos.2 and
3, which happens to be on the issue of extra marital affair of accused
No.1. The allegations of demand for additional dowry are bald and
appear to have been made only to attract the provisions of Section 498A
IPC.
14. In view of these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section
Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022
188 of Cr.P.C. is required for proceeding with against the petitioners
herein for the offences alleged in the complaint, on the basis of which
the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3,
4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered. As this Court is
not satisfied that the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506
IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out
against petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the C.C., as having been
committed in India, this Court is of the opinion that none of the offences
can be tried in India.
15. Both the Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.1873 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional
Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga
Reddy are quashed.
16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Criminal
Petitions shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 07.03.2024
Svv
