The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the same in the proceedings in CC.'No.5942 ol 2024 on the file of the Court of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. l NO:2O F 2024 Petition under section- 529 of BNss praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of ciounds or criinin'at Feiition, fre Hi!'n d;il;;; be preased to stay of ail further pfoceeoings in cc.'tt-o. ssnz of 2024 0n the fire "'" of the court of the XV Additionar chiet uret-roporitan rr,rlgirtrrt" "tiyd;;il: This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of _ Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing ihe arguments of Mr. c.Hari Preeth, counsel representing Mr. cH.Venkat Raman, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. V.Yadu Krishna Siinath, Advocate for Respondent No.2/ defacto comprainant and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additionar pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Responde-nt No.1/State. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER: ) I l I I -) IN THE HIGH COURT FO o,,,fJf,.oBhr. oF TELANGANA THEHONOURA B cRIMINA P MT. JU Tlc U DI s ID TI ON No .9076ot2 24 0 DEC Between Nikhit Raj Amuda and three others BER 20 The State of Telangana , Kep. by its public prosecutor AND and another :o RD E R Petitioners ... Respondents Nos.1 to 4 seeking This Criminat petition is filed by the petitioners_accused quash the proceedings against them in on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief C.C.No.5942 ot 2024to Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (for short ,trial offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 49g_A . 3.!9.5.9-6.?l lt.llgjqt t:t3l.g9g9 (9f :hort Heard Mr. C.Hari preeth, learned Mr. CH.Venkat Raman, learned Mr. V.yadu Krishna Sainath de facto counsel representing counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2_ complainant and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Court,). The ,rpc,). 2 a 2 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-state. Perused the record. 3 Brief facts the case

3.1. Respondent No.2-de facto complainant, is the father of the victim/LW-3 namely Amuda Sravani, who is the wife of the petitioner-accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, are the father, mother and brother of petitioner-accused No.1 respectively

3.2. The marriage of petitioner-accused No.'l was performed with victim on 17.02.2022 and certain amount of dowry was given to the petitioner-accused No.1. At the time of marriage, all the petitioners harassed the victim. After the marriage, the victim I joined petitioner-accused No.1 at th.e matrimonial home in Hyderabad,'resided there for 2/z months, and thereafter left to USA. During their stay at Hyderabad, although arrangements were a made for the couple's first night, it did not take place due to the actions of petitioner-accused No.3.

3.3. After a few days of their departure to USA, petitioner- accused No.1 began harassing the victim. As the tuition fees of 3 .\ victim was not paid by petitioner-accused No.1, the de facto complainant was compelled to pay Rs.38,00,000/- towards her fees. Petitioner-accused No.1 refrained from marital relations with the victim, alleging that they were being treated as infonauts. During the time of the victim's interview, petitioner-accused No.1 deliberately switched on an IPL match and increased the volume. He also obstructed her from attending the interview, alleging that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 had made derogatory remarks, and thereafter disconnected the wi-Fi connection. Petitioner-accused No.1 used to provoke the victim, record her videos, and sent the same to petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. He did not properly reside in the home and used to come home only 2- 3 days a week.. Unable to bear such harassment, the victim attempted to commit suicide. . 3-4. Believiqg the words of petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, petitioner-accused No.1 subjected the victim to physical and a menta! harassment and also sent divorce notices to her. As the victim remained in USA, her father, the de facto complainant, has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners, for their acts of cruelty and harassment. \ J 4 the etitio rS learned MISS NS 4 4.1 . The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant' only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes' Although the marriage between petitioner-accused No'1 and victim was performed on 17.02-2022, the present complaint was lodged on 10.04.2024 i.e., there is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 resided in lndia and no specific allegations are levelled against them' except stating that they have supported the acts of petitioner-accused No'1'

4.2. The petitioner-accused No'1 and the victim have obtained divorce by way of a Decree, dated 03'01'2024 in the Court at USA' From then, the victim is residing separately from petitioner-accused No.1. All the witnesses are family 'members of de facto complainant and they are interested witnesses' The statement of victim/LW-3 was recorded by the Police through Whats App video call. The petitioner-accused No'1 and the viclim were residing in USA and only de facfo complainant is pursuing the present case' The allegations made by the de facfo complainant in the present complaint are hear-say and he had no personal knowledge of the alleged incidqnlq. ./ a 5 4-3. As the ailegations made against the petitioners have taken place in USA, where the spouses lived together, the prosecution ought to have obtained mandatory sanction under Section .tgg of Cr.P.C. from the Central Government. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relieb on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme ' Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. Sfafe of Andhra prudesh through Principal Secretary and anothe/. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in Siddapuram Raghunandan v. State of

4.4. ln the instant case, after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the matter is , coming up for framing of charges. However, no sanction under Section 188 of Cr.p.C. was obtained by the police. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2_de facfo complainant all the petitioners have harassed the victim physically and mentally. Due to the harassment meted out by the petitioners, the de facto complainant executed a gift setflement deed in favour of the victim in respect of a house plot, within a few days from the date of her ' 1zort1 9 scc szz 'l 2025 t-awsuit (Ts) 18s I I 5 marriage with petitioner-accused No'1' Though the learned counsel admitted that all the alleged incidents have happened in USA, he submitted that the bar under Section 188 of Cr'P'C' does not apply, until the stage of trial' The de facto complainant has also initiatedD.V.C.andM.C.proceedingsagainstthepetitioner. accused No.1. There are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against them can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court. Hence' he prayed to dismiss the petition' Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended on 6. the similar lines of learned counsel for respondent No'2-de facto complainant. The marriage of victim was performed with petitioner- 7. accused No.'1 on '7.02'2L22however the present complaint was lodged on 10.04.2024. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained' lf really there was harassment as alleged in the complaint which was severe enough to drive the victim to commit suicide, lhe de facto complainant or victim would not have remained silent for such a long period and would have I complained much earlier' 7 1

8. As per the complaint, it is evident that the petitioner- usA. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.1 started harassing the victim physically and mentally. The marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 and the victim was dissolved by the Court at USA on

03.01 .2024.

9. on a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the complaint was todged by the fathei of the victim and the entirety of the allegations pertains to the incidents said to have happened in usA. The statement of the victim was recorded by the police through whatsApp video cal!. Although it is stated in the complaint that the victim attempted to commit suicide, there is no medical record to substantiate the same.

10. A signiticant legal infirmity ,emerges from the procedural lapse concerning th.e very initiation of the prosecution. For prosecuting an lndian citizen for an offence alleged to have been I cohmitted outsidei lndia, the prosecuting agenc, iS'nidndatoillt required to obtain prior sanction from the centrat Government as contemplated under Section 1BB of the Cr.p.C. 8

11. For proper adjudication of the matter' Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is reProduced hereunder: '788. Offence commilled outside lndiar When an offence is committed oubide Indiat (a) by a citizen of lndia, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or b) by any person, not being such citizen' on any ship or aircraft registered in lndia' i" deaft with in respect of such offences as if it i," ^ry had bien commifted at any place within lndia at which he may be found; irwided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the.. piceaing Sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall 'bte inquied into or tried in lndia except with the previous sanction of the Central Govemment'"

12. ln the above provision, it is clarified that in order to conduct an inquiry, as defined under Section 2(g) of Cr'P'C" the prior sanction of the Central Government is mandatory' if the offence was committed outside lndia' lt is further clarified that the Police are fully empowered to register the crime and investigate the case' Therefore, the proviso imposes a bar'only to inquire into the offence or trial of the said offence in lndia without previous sanction of the Central Government' The said proviso does not impose any bar on the registration of the crime or the investigation of the case, even though the offence was committed by an lndian citizen outside lndia. a '! ) 9

13. ln the present case, all the allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioner-accused No.1 pertain to acts committed outside lndia and the matter is coming up for framing of charges in the trial Court. Admittedly, no prior sanction of the Cenkal Government was obtained by the prosecuting agency in the present case. Such non-compliance is not a mere procedural irregularity but a jurisdictionar defect, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution and vitiates the proceedings

14. lt is pertinent to note that the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2-de facfo complainant, who is the father of the victim. The de facfo complainant does not have personal knowledge of the.alleged incidents which took place between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the victim. As such, he is not a direct . witness to the alleged acts and therefore is incapable of adducing evidence befere the trial Court. Any statement or testimony given by the de facfo complainant, in the absence of personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, would amount to hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible in law and cannot be relied upon as the basis for initiating criminal prosecution. a 10

15. The record discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 4 are residing separately from the petitioner-accused No'1 and the de.facto complainant. On .a. careful perusal qf cgntelltp of the entire charge sheet, it is evident that there are no descriptive particulars as to in what manner the petitioners-accused Nos'l to 4 have subjected the de facto complainant to harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry. '16. From any perspective, there are no pima facie grounds to proceed with the criminal trial against the petitioners' Hence' the petitioners cannot be subjected to the ordeal of trial' especially when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of dowry against them, coinbined with the prosecution's failure to obtain the mandatory sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos"l to 4 in C.C.No.5942 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed' I _____ 11 As a sequel,.pending miscellaneous applications' if any' I shall stand closed. SD/. T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE TION OFFICER To,

1. The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, South East Zone Police Station,, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to Sri. CH.Venkat Raman, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT].

6. Two CD Copies. PSK /PSL J-<s a HIGH COURT DATED:03t1212025 ORDER CRLP.No.9076 of 2024 I , I t(HE SIA ls \ (} () 1 6 JAN 2026 * .{r.r 6)}\ * l ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITHOUT COST JKg ?/' fz a