The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADTSRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5 93 of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No .9262 o,f ZO22 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 4gg_A, 406 and 420 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short D.p. Act).

2. Heard Sri p.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public plosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2_de facfo complainant is the father of victim, who is the wife of petitioner_accused No..l . ln brief, the caie of the prosecution is that the marriage of petitioner was performed with victim on 31.03.201g. At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and 40 tulas of jewellery was given to the petitioner. After marriage, victim and petitioner stayed at Kondapur for 23 days. Latet they left to USA due to petitioner,s job Though they were riving together, there was no physicar rerationship 2 between the spouses and the petitioner used to sleep separately in the bed room. When the victim tried to move closer to him, he used to comment in a negative sense and also harassed her for additional dowry. Later, at request of victim, v,rith great difficulty, they had co-habitation. Then the petitioner expressed that he is suffering with Erectile Dysfunction as such he avoided her. However, the victim conceived. But petitioner being not happy for the same used to harass her. Thereafter, victim was hospitalized with Lupus-Nephritis and in the procedure to have medical examination and treatment, she was aborted. The Doctors advised the petitioner and victim to attend medical counseling and examination for further plan of having children. Subsequently, the petitioner left victim and absconded from the home without giving any information. Petitioner filed a petition for divorcd in the American Court. Since the petitioner cheated the victim by marrying her by suppressing his disease of Erectile Dysfunction and harassed her demanding additional dowry, the father of victim i.e., respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner-accused No.'l and others for the aforesaid offences. n

4. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1 . The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. All the allegations made in the complaint by the de facfo complainant took place in USA. However, the mandatory sanction of the Central Government as is required under Section '1 88 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained. lf the petitioner is suffering from Erectile Dysfunction, the question of victim conceiving does not arise. The petitioner never harassed the victim to bring additional dowry. ln fact, he took good care of the victim and he himself transferred Rs.38,01,0001- from his Bank account at USA to the Bank account of the victim at Sangareddy, lndia. Both the parties were granted divorce by mutual consent on

04.05.2023 in the Court of USA. The Maritd Settlement Agreement also contains a specific clause stating that the funds previously transferred to the father of victim shall remain his property, and the petitioner expressly waived any right to claim return of those filnds from the victim or her father.

4.2. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Thotapally Sai prasanna Kumar vs. 4 The State of Telangana and Ors.1 , wherein, at paragraph No.B, it was held as under:

8. The Hon'ble Apex Courl in Thota Venkateswarlu case MANU/SC/I010/2011 . (2011) 9 SCC 527 (supra) on a simitar facts where the complaint was made by the ?d respondent in the said case for the alleged offences under Sections 4g&A and 506 tpC, which were committed outside lndia in Botswana, where the petitioner and the 2nd respondent therein were rcsiding, observed that: "1 4. The language of Section l Bg Cr.p.C_ is quite ctear that when an offence is committed outside tndia by a citizen of tndia, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in lndia. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried onty after having obtained the previous sanction of the Centrat Government. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Agganuat's case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 1gg 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:- t "29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a.citizen of lndia outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one - - commission of an offence; second _ _ by an lndian citizen; and third - - that it should have been committecl outside the country." 1 5. Although the decision in Ajay Agganval,s case (suprb) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the deciiion is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 1gg Cr.P.C. The prcviso to Section 189, 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 eartier pai of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Centrat Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearty indicates that no sanction in terms of section 188 is required till commencement of the triat. lt is only after the decision to ky the offender in lndia was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Centrat government woutd 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 'nitnruu/rl/oras/2022 tN crt.p.No.2173 ot 2016 // I 5 Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in lndia and lo complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required." 9. Considering the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Coutt, this Courl in Crl.P.No.l 1034 of 2015 and also considering that the limitation for taking cognizance of the offence against A2 to A5 was barred, quashed the proceedings against A2 to A5 in CC No.354 of 2015. 10. With regard to the contention of the tearned counsel for the ld respondent that sanction is not necessarily to be obtained before taking cognizance ff,is Court in Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v. State of A.P. Laws (APH)-2010-1-19 held that. '5 .............. Relevant words contained in Section 197 Cr.P.C. are to the effect; "no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction". Therefore, sanction for prosecution is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of such a case against the public servant. Sanction has lo be previous in point of time and it should be previous to taking cognizance of the offence by the Court or the Magistrate. Subseguent sanction if any obtained cannot cure initial or inceptual defect attached to the_case. lt is not a curable defect which can be rectified at subsequent stage of the proceedings or before final decision is taken by the criminal Court. The prohibition is in respect of taking cognizance of the offence against the public servant;1and the prohibition is not for either commencement of trial or for final decision by way of recording conviction or acquittal. When there is legal prohibition for taking cognizance of the offence, question of the criminal Court proceeding with trial of the case does not arise at all. The criminal Couft takes cognizance of offence by issuing of summons or warrant to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. after following the procedure conlained m Secfions 200, 201 and 202 Cr.P.C. and if not resofted to Section 203 Cr.P.C. Therefore, sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. shall be obtained and presented before the Magistrate prior to stage of issuing of process to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. At the same time, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required for presentation of a complaint before the Magistrate or for recording of sworn statement o{ the complainant by the Magistrate. Questlon of applicability of Section 197 Cr.p.C. has to be considered after examination of the complainant and his w,tnesses if any, by way of recording of their sworn slafemenrs by the Magistrate. There is no option for the criminat Courl 6 except to dlsmrss the complaint in case sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not obtained prior to issuing of process to the accused. The prohibition for taking cognizance of offence contained under Section 197(1) Cr.p.C. is a mandatory prohibition and has to be considered at the threshold of the case and not at a subsequent stage. Therefore, taking cogniz.ance ofthe case againstthe petitioner/A_l in this case by the lower Court is not in accordance with law and is tiable to be quashed." l l.Considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which u/as a/so applicable to the petitioner-Al and the judgment of this Couft in Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam case (supra), it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against him, as no sanction of the Central Government was obtained by the prosecuting agency till date to proceed against him.

4.3. Hence, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one tone submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner apd the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of Cr.p.C is extracted hereunder: "188. Offence committed outside tndia:- When an offence is committed outside I ndia. (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 lndia, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if it had been committed at any place within lndia at which he may be found; Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding Secfions of this Chapter, no such offence shalt be inquired into or \ 7 tried in lndia except with the previous sanction of the Central Government."

7. As per the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner and victim are legally married and have moved to USA. The first allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the marriage was not consummated as he is suffering with Erectile Dysfunction. However, the record unequivocally establishes that the victim conceived during the subsistence of the marriage and her pregnancy was subsequently terminated on medical grounds due to Lupus Nephritis. This fact effectively rebuts the allegation of Erectile Dysfunction

8. With respect to the second allegation of dowry harassment, prima facie, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to show that he has harassed the victimrdemanding additional dowry. The documentary evidence on record clearly indicates that the petitioner transferred funds to victim's personal bank account in Sangareddy at lndia as well as to her father's account. These financial transactions clearly establish that there is no alleged demand for dowry made by the petitioner herein. Furthermore, the medical records substantiate that the petitioner ensured medical care and support during victim's hospitalization, including bearing all associated medical expenses, thereby reflecting his concern and sense of responsibility towards her well_ 8 1 being. lt is on record that the marriage between the spouses was dissolved through a f\4arital Setflement Agreement in the United States, thereby settling all the marital disputes amicably and without coercion.

9. At this instance, it is pertinent to discuss the prominent aspects of the ltlarital Settlement Agreement, which are extracted hereunder B. Monisha is hereby granted, and Raghunandan is hereby divested of all right, title, and interest to the following propefty:

1. All bank accounts in her name:

2. One half of the value of the Fdetity 401(k) in Raghunandan's name as of the date of the entry of Judgment, as referenced in more detail below;

3. One-half of the value of the vested stock in Raghunaidan's name as of the entry of Judgment, as adiusted for gains or /osses on those shares between the date of the entry of Judgment and thet liquidation, as referenced in more detail below;

4. One-haff of the value of the unvested stock in Raghunandan's name accrued as of the date of the entry of Judgment but not yesfed, as adjusted for gains or /osses on those shares between the date of the entry of Judgment and their liquidation, as referenced in more detail below:

5. One-halt of the value of the funds held in Raghunandan's name at Karur Vysya Bank in lndia as of the date of the entry of Judgment, as referenced in more detail below;

6. Household goods and personal items ln her possession as of the date of the entry of Judgment;

7. All jewelry and coins/gold/silver that she owns;

8. 100% of any alleged ight and/or interest that Raghunandan alleges that Monisha holds in the funds that he gave to her father, as referenced in more detail below: and

9. Fifty percent of the 2022 federal and state tax refunds received in connection with the parties' 2022 joint federal and state tax returns, as referenced in more detail below. F. Funds received by Monisha's Father: The pafties acknowledge and agree that the funds that were previously transferred to Monisha's father by Raghunandan -/ 9 shall remain the propefty of her-father, and Raghunandan waives any and att right to seek reimbursement of those funds from Mon-isha and/or her father. nagnuntintdii represents that the amounts transferred to Monisha,s father totaled $ SS3gb.0O. Vl Grounds-Mutual: The padies agree that the marriage is tretievably broken. Vll. Nature of agreement: The pafties state that they have freely entered into this Agreement with fu knowredge and information. This Ajreement is executed free .of any duress, coercion, collision, or undue inftuenci. ln some instances,- i represents a compromise of disputed issues. However, both pafties believe the terms and conditions to be fair and reasonable under the ctcumstances. Both pafties fufther .that . no representations, warranties, promises, covenants, o,r acknowledge undeftakings of any kind have been made to him or her as'an inducement to enter inio this Agreement, other than those expressty set fodh i"16. fy1" Agreement is intended to be and is a complete agreement of the partres as fo the subject matter. XIV Mutual/General Release: Each pafty releases the other from any claim of any nature whatsoever that may exist on the d;te of the execution of me n(lreiieit This release retates to the paftie.s only. Neither pafty .ry, iiZny time hereafter, sue the other party, or his or her he-irs, personal and assigns for the purpose of enforcing any or all of the rights relinquished or waived under this Agreement. Both padies also agree that if iny suit is'commenced by a paiy to this Agreement, this release. when pleaded, snati constrtuie a citmplete- deien"; i; ;r, such claim or suit so instituted by either pafty 'r"pi"""riitiu"",

10. Thus, from the Marital Setflement Agreement and particularly, clause XIV i.e., ttlutual/General Release of the said Agreement, it is crearry estabrished that the matter was setfled between the parties in amicabre terms. rn view of tle same, the de facto complainant ought to have. withdrawn the present complaint lodged against the petitioner. Trying the present criminal complaint, when the matter was already setfled between the parties, would amount to abuse of process of law.

11. Crucially, brushing aside all other aspects, the most significant regar infirmity ries in the procedurar rapse concerning the prosecution itself. For prosecuting an lndian citizen for an offence committed outside lndia, charge sheet has to be filed by 10 the prosecuting agency after obtaining the mandatory sanction from the Central Government, as is required under Section 1Bg of Cr.P.C

12. A perusal of Section 1gg of Cr.p.C. discloses that the words which were used in the said proviso are ,,previous of the Central Governmenf,i which means that first sanction should be granted by the Central Government and then only, the case has to be proceeded with. sanction 13 The Hon'bre Supreme court, in a catena of decisions and even in the judgmen t of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v. State of A.p. Laws (cited supra), has held that the absence of such prior sanction is a fatal flaw that vitiates the entire criminal proceedings. In the absence of thle,requisite sanction, the prosecution is rendered noo:€st in law, and hence, legally unsustainable. '14. However, in the instant case, no such permission was obtained by the prosecuting agency. This is not a mere procedurar irregurarity, but a iurisdictionar defect that strikes at the root of the prosecution. T

15. Further, in the present case, the entire alleged incidents took place in U.S.A. and the victim being the wife of the \ i I I 7, 11 { { petitioner is the right person to file the complaint, but no reason has been given in the complaint as to why the respondent No.2 (petitioner's father-in-law) has filed the present complaint. Though the Court permits the parents to file the complaints, some reasons have to be assigned as to why the real victim has not preferred the complaint before the Court. Moreover, in the present case, respondent No.2 has no personal knowledge about the incident which took place between the petitioner and his wife, so as to adduce any evidence before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of respondent No.2 will be treated as 'hearsay evidence', which is inadmissible in evidence. '16. From any angle looked at, I am of the considered view that there are no grounds to proceed with the criminal trial against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.9262 of 2022 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed L2 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed, t Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAM BA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, 'l The Xilt Add 2. The Station District. ., SECTION OFFICER Itional Chief Metro politan Magistrate at ampa lly, Hyderabad House Officer, WPS, CCS, DD, Police Station, Hyderabad Prosecutor' Hish court ror the state or reransana ar Iy;":r?:J:rffi?ublic 9n" 99 to Sri p Giri Krishna, Advocate IOPUCI 9r" 99 to Sri Sridhar Lonkata, navocate'1Oe-U-i1 Two CD Copies SL

4. 5. b. Kam/P I I I \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ,.) oI ) H1Ro 4S

16. 16 sEP M ces., a rlui:O (' o +i ORDER CRLP.No.593 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION