High Court · 2025

High court at ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS petition under Sec stated n rhe Memora nd,:"; :: fl :::"Tff T":[: lirff f ff ffi; be preased to quash the proceedings in c.c,No. 464 0f 20150n the fire of the court of the Judicial First class lVragistrate at Kodad for an offence under sec 49B-A' 506 rpc and sec 3 and 4 0f Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 against the Petitioners/Accused No_ 2 and 3. r.A. NO : 1OF 2019 Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay a, further proceedings in c.c. No. 464 0f 2015 0n the fire of the court of the Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Kodad for an offence under sec 49B-A' 506 rpc and sec. 3 and 4 0f Dowry prohibition Act, 1g61 incruding a'@ ,/ / above Criminal Petition' appearance of the petitioners/Accused No' 2 and 3 pending disposal of the This Petition comrng on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal p"tition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Advocate l"' *" Petitioner 26i Sri M Vivekananda Reddy' Assistant public prosecutor tTGl on behalf of the Respondent No.,1 and none aPPeared for the ResPondent No'2' The Court made the following: ORDER W' I ..,/ i1 I 1 I , l i I THE HONOURABLE CRIMINA OR DE R: L PETITION SRI JUSTICE K.SUREND No. 655ooF2ot 9 ER This Criminai petition is filed by the petitioners/A-2 anrl A-3 seekrng to quash proceedings in C.C.No.46 4 of 2015, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad. The offences aileged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 506 IpC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961. I I l 2 Heard 1earned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A_3 Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent_ State. Perused the record 3. The petitioners herein are parents_in_law of 2,,t re sponden t/ compl ainant. Charge sheet was {iled these petitioners and their son who is A_ I . A- 1 preferred Cri.P.No. 10536 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 17.08.2O16 quashed the proceedings against A_1 stating that ali the transactions have taken place in United States (US) and it was also observed that the allegations on A_2 and A_3 aga]nst u,ho are the Petitioners herei.n, the acts have taken Place rn US. 4 C)n the grounds of parit-v' the proceedings against thcse petitioners / A-2 and A-3 are also quashed Accordingly, the Criminal Petition rs 5 a11or'r,c d pencling, if an-r' ' shall stand Miscellaneous aPPlications closed. l \ I To, //TRUE COPY// SdI - T. JAYASREE STAN T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER raS 1 1, t l 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad 2. The Station House Officer' Kodad Town Police Staion' Nalgonda 3. One CC to Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud' Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD coPies _ --a--i -- HIGH COURT DATED:14 lOZl2025 I I ORDER CRLP.No.6550 of 2019 .. j:)r . - $I SEP T6 .:/ -,:., i' ii=j=.--,,;;.i' Allowing the Criminal Petition THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL R P =Tt T o 6 1 ORDER: The criminal petition is fired by petitioner/Al under section 482 cr.P.c. to quash the proceedings in c.c.No. 464 ot 2o1s on the file of the Judicial First Class lVagistrate, Kodad, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences under Sections 49g-A & 506 IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, -l961.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Al, the learned public prosecutor, representing the State and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and his parents before the jurisdictionar porice aileging that the marriage of the petitioner and herself was performed on 15..1 1.2003 as per Hindu custom and rites at Ramakrishna Degree College, lMiryalaguda road, Haliya, Nalgonda District and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondents gave cash of Rs.4 lakh and gold ornaments worth of Rs.S lakhs and spent Rs.6 lakh for the marriage. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent joined the petitioner and both of them went to USA in December, 2013 and acquired citizenship of USA. The 2nd respondent could not conceive till 4 years after the marriage and the medical reports reveal that there is fault in the petitioner and hence she consulted for Test Tube Baby and came back to lndia in 2014 and took treatment. While the :- | tc\A ^L^ ^^+ ^_-t^,,*^^+ ^^J r^^- ^^t^,i^^ -^^^^^I^^+...^^ 2nd . credited into the account of the petitioner on mutual understanding. As the treatment of the 2nd respondent is expensive, the petitioner and his parents subiected her to cruelty and demanded her parents for additional dowry' When the 2nd respondent was 6 months pregnant' the petitioner and his parents forced her to travel to USA and insisted her to do job' The petitioner and his parents came to know through medical tests that there is female baby in the womb of the 2nd respondent and then they started harassing the 2nd respondent After she gave birth to a female baby, the 2nd respondent resigned her job for the welfare of the baby. The petitioner confined the 2nd respondent and her baby in a room without providing any maintenance for them' Thereafter, the 2nd respondent and her daughter came to lndia in 2015 and placed the issue before the elders However' there is no change in the attitude of the petitioner and his parents and hence she lodged the comPlaint'

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence took place as alleged in lndia and no previous sanction was obtained under Section 1BB Cr'P'C to conduct trial in the abovecaseandhencetheinitiationofproceedingsagainstthe petitioner and his parents is abuse of process of law' The learned counsel further contended that at the request of the concerned police, the learned tt/lagistrate, without applying his mind, erroneously issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and summons to the non-petitioners/A2 & A3.

5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted thrt nart nf lha nrimo haq heen.:nmmittad in lndia and nart nf thp -.RF\'.'r I I I i t : Section 1gg Cr.p.C is not contentions, he relied upon the necessary and in following decisions. support of his

6. ln Muralikrishna v. StatJil the High Court of t\uladras offence committed in lndia and ber're'irYins held that if it is a cor furtherance of that comJtinuing ::"# ;,';,:"Jff: ; ;,H;,:oun'[rY zernment is not 7 ln Thota Venkateshwartu vs. State of A.P.Tr.princl.Sec. & Anr.H., the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that the provision of Section 4 of the Indian penal Code has been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond lndia.

8. ln Fatma Bibi Ahmed patet v. State of cujarap ne Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to Section 4 lpC and Section 1BB Cr.p.C has laid down in paragraphs_14, 15 and 16 as under: "14. There are materials before us to show that the appellant is a citizen ot Mauritius. She has been visiting lndia on vis thus, indisputaory is notlas ff::l :lflff :1: might have been staying in India with her relatives as has been contended by the complainant, but it has not been denied and disputed that she is not a citizen of lndia. If she is not a citizen of lndia having regard to the provisions contained in Section 4 oJ the Penal Code and Section 1BB of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order taking cognizance must be held to be illegal.

15. \n terms of Sectron 4 ot the Pena\ Code, the \nd\an courts w\\\ have lurisdict\on to try an accused ontv it the accused is a citizen of lndia "rr i"':::: 1J""lT;'"X'":l"o;: by any person rnola wherever 't 'i'''.';; attracted in the aforementioned t"tt'"9:1"";,r" '' ali. of Criminal instant case. section.'tt# "il; commitred Procedure also deals r :rffi;i;.,;' clause (a) brinss within itt t-1::o: o"nd'u' whether on the high seas or ;"; elsewhere,orbyaperson'althoughnotcitizenof tre offence is committed on anv ship or ;;;;;;;; aircraft registered in lndia' 16. ln view of the fact that the ottence is said- to have been committed in Kuwait' the provisions ot ti" p"n"r Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to have any application'" (1) (2)

9. Section 4 of the lndian Penal Code reads as under "4. Extension ot Code to extra-territorial offences:- The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed bY- any citizen of lndia in any place without and beyond lndia; any person on any ship or aircraft registered in lndra wherever it maY be' Exptanation: ln this section the word 'oftence' includes every act committed outside lndia which if ....n*O in India, would be punishable under this Code. A, who is a citizen of lndia' commits a murder in Uganda, he can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in lndia in which he may be found'" (a) (b) I I .10. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as ',199. Offence committed outside lndia:_ When an offence is commited outside lndia___ by a citizen of lr tdia' whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or a.person. no.t b:inS such citizen, on any .by I i I I it had been committed at any place within lndia 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 lndia except with the previous sanction of the Central Government." 1 I. From the above authoritative pronouncement what emanates is that the provisions of the Penal Code will apply to any offence committed by any citizen of lndia in any place and if he is not an lndian citizen, such an offence should have been committed on a ship or aircraft registered in lndia. lt is also clear from the provisions of law that if an offence is committed outside lndia by an lndian citizen or by a person who is not an lndian citizen on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such an offence at any place within lndia.

12. ln the instant case, the facts as stated above reveal that lhe de facto complainant and the petitioner/A.1 were married in the year 2003 and immediately thereafter, both of them left for United States of America (USA) where the petitioner/A-1 was already gainfully employed. The de faclo complainant/wife also appears to have secured a job and they lived there. Not only that, both of them have acquired the citlzenship of USA and were living there.

13. A reading of the complaint shows that all the acts of omissions and commissions which are alleged to have perpetrated against the petitioner/A.1 have taken place in USA. The fact that both the petitioner/A. l and the de lacfo complainant/wife are citizens of USA is clear from the recitals of the very complaint, wherein it is stated that when the de facto complainant/wife has had to obtain temporary VISA for her to come to India where the matter was placed before the elders for settlement.

14. A reading of the complaint shows that almost all the allegations are in respect of the petitioner/A.1/husband and they are said to have been perpetrated in USA and even the allegations made against the non-petitionerslA.2 & A.3, who are the parents of the petitioner/A.1 are also in respect of the acts which are taken place in USA. ln that view of the matter, since both the petitioner/A.1/husband and the de facto complainant/wife are the citizens of USA and all the incidents of harassment, cruelty etc., are took place in USA, the cognizance of such an offence against the person who is a citizen of a foreign country cannot be taken in the court in lndia.

15. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that all further proceedings against the petitioner/A..1 are liable to be quashed. .1 6. The Criminal petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, proceedings in C.C.No.464 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class l\/agistrate, Kodad, Nalgonda District against the petitioner/A1 are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. Date: 17 .08.2016 Dsr M.S.K.JAISWAL,J u A 1cn.o.".^o.', r 724 ot 2o't3, dated 13.12.2013, Nladras High Court) 1rar.1cn.1*o.rM, of 2008, dated 02.09.2011)