The High Court · 2025

!N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION N0.14410 ot 2024 DATED:s"DECEMB ER 2025 Between: Mandha Gnana Prahalad ReddY . Petitioner AND The State of Telangana represented by the Public Prosecutor and one another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.'1 to quash the proceedings against him in C C.No 5070 of 2022 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short 'the learned trial Court'). The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 498-A, 406 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for shortlhe Act').

02. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.S Anirudh Reddy, learned ]. I : : : t I I 2 counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sriram Polali, lerl ned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramach:rdra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Sli te. Perused the record 03(a). The brief facts of the case are that I asing on the complaint made by the respondent No.2, rrrho is the father of wife of the petitioner-accused No.1, a case wi s registered for the alleged offences punishable under Secli tns 406 and 498-4 of iPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the A: vide Crime No.730 of 2021, dated 25.09.2021 and cor sequently a charge sheet, dated 22.09.2023 was filed whic r was taken cognizance and was numbered as C.C.No.501't o1 202 on the file of the learned trial Court. 03(b) fhe contents of the charge sheet vr, ruld disclose that the marriage of the petitioner-accused l'1 :.1 and the daughter of the respondent No.2 solemnized q 21 .04.2016 at Naren Gardens, Miyapur and at the time of marriage Rs 1.50 crores of cash and 156 tulas of gold v as given as dowry. After marriage, the daughter of the resc:ndent No 2 went to Washington D C. along with the petiti: rer-accused ( 3 No.1 and after some days, the petitioner-accused No.1 started harassing her both mentally and physically and treating like a slave. lt is further alleged that the petitioner- accused No.1 used to forward all the phone recordings to the accused No.3, who in turn instigated the petitioner-accused No.1 to harass her. Thereafter, she got pregnant and the petitioner-accused No.1 insisted for abortion. On 25 07 2019, she gave birth to a baby girl and on 17 .11.2019 she returned to lndia along with the baby and the accused No.1 never bothered to see her. lt is further alleged that the accused No.1 misappropriated the entire dowry amount and also harassed her for additional dowry 04(a). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner- accused No.1 is innocent of the alleged offences. The daughter of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No 1 moved to United States of America on 07 05.2016 and later, when she came to lndia to write GRE-Toefl exam, she stayed at her parent's house. It is further contended that even statement of LW-6 i.e., the daughter of respondent No 2 was recorded through WhatsApp call and that the 4 accused No. 1 and LW_6 were residing in ltnited Sates of America and only respondent No.2 is pursu ng.the present 04(b). lt is further contended that the alt :gations made by the respondent No.2 are only hear_say e nd he had no personal knowledge about the incidents. Furll ermore, at the time of marriage of the brother of the peri ioner-accused No.1, which took place on 15.06.2019, the re: pondent No.2 and his family members also attended the narriage and reception, which was held on 17.6.2019...he said fact establishes that there were no ill feelings beh reen the two families. lt is further contended that if at all th :re were any issues, they would not have attended and partir,ipated in the functions and the daughter of the respondenl \o.2 did not aftend the functions as she was in advanr: ld stage of pregnancy 04(c) lt is further contended that the petitioner_ accused No .l filed a petition for divorce before the Circuit court, Howard county, Maryrand and the sairJ court yrde order, dated 03.01.2023 granted absolute I vorce and 5 permanent custody of minor child was given to the daughter of the respondent No.2. Further, the petitioner-accused No.1 was directed to pay $1488 per month towards child support for the minor child. lt is also contended that considering the well-being of the mother and child, the petitioner-accused No.'1 did not insist for the custody of minor child and agreed only for visitation rights. But the respondent No.2 on behalf of his daughter filed F.C.O.P.No.1734 of 2022 on26.09.2022 before the learned Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and in view of the Divorce Order passed by the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland, the said FCOP does not survive. Furthermore, one Mani Malladi, an Astrologer by profession was also falsely implicated as the accused No.5 by the respondent No.2, but the police during investigation, deleted his name This itself shows the attitude of the respondent No.2 in implicating the innocent people in criminal case out of their personal vendetta 04(d) lt is further contended that as far as the allegation of misappropriation of jewellery is concerned, the police did nof'get any evidence during investigation as to { 6 entrustment of the jewellery and therefor: the essential ingredients of Section 406 of l.p.C. are not rttracted. lt is further submitted that as per the statements ,) the witnesses recorded under Section 16.1 of Cr.p.C., he petitioner_ accused No. 1 never returned to lndia or rommifted any harassment in lndia to constitute an offer ce within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and tc prosecute the petitioner-accused No 1 there should be Sar:tion from the Central Government under Section 1gg of lr.p.C. This Court vide Order dated 16.10.2023 passed in CRL.P.No.655O of 2023 quashed the procee dings against the accused Nos,2 and 4 and vide Order dal d 05.11.2024 passed in CRL P No 9463 of 2023 quashed th : proeeedings against the accused No 3 04(e). With the above submissions, wlr le praying to quash the criminal proceedings against 1te petitioner_ accused No.1, he relied upon the decision ,: the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gaba and other:; Vs. Sfafe of Uttar Pradesh and anotherl held as under: ' 12ozs; s scc lz: 7 "For Section 406 of the IPC to get attracted, there must be ciminal breach of trust in tems of Section 405 of the lPC.9 For Section 405 of the IPC to be attracted, the following have to be established: (a) the accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property; (b) the accused had dishonestly misapprcprbted or conveded to their own use that propedy, or dishonestly used or disposed of that propefty or witfully suffer any other person to do so; and (c) such misappropiation, conversion, use or disposal shoutd be in violation of any dircction of law prescribing the mode in which such frusf is lo be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust." 04(f) Further, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others2, wherein at paragraph Nos 12, 18, 19, and22 it was held that: "12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of atlegations made, it becomes peftinent to mentrcn that incorporation of sectbn 498A of IPC was almed at preventing cruelty commifted upon a woman by her husband and her in' laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true. that in recent times, matimonial litigation in the country has a/so increased signifaantly and there $ a greater disaffection and fiction surrounding the institutrcn of mariage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an lncreased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 18. The above-mentioned decisions cleady demonstrate that this coud has at numerous ,nslances expressed concern over the misuse of '(zozz) scc onlrne sc 162 I I : 6 section 498A lpC and the increased ten t ncy of implicating relatives of the husband in mut.imonial drspufeg without analysing the tong term ran,i, c,aiions of a tial on the comptainant as well as the a((,.tsed. lt is fufther manifest from the said judgments tt 1t false lmplication by way of general omnibus al e qations made in the course of matimonial dispLtl= if teft unchecked wouid result in misuse of the prt :ess of law. Therefore, this coutt by way of its judgme ts has wamed the coutts from proceeding aga,t st the relatives and in-laws of the husband when rrr prima facie case is made out against them. 19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a pe usal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is x vealed that general altegations are levelted agai st the Appellants. The complainant alleged that att a .cused harassed her mentalty and threatened t er of terminating her pregnancy. Fufthermore, no : cecific and distinct altegations have been made r gainst either of the Appellants herein, L.e., none )f the Appellants have been attibuted any specific ole in fuftherance of the general allegations made t gainst them. This simpty leads to a situation whert: t one fails to ascertain the rote played by each acc:t;ed in fuftherance of the offence. The a egatiot; are therefore general and omnibus and can al lrr s;I be said to have been made out on account of small skftmr'shes. lnsofar as husband is concerneo, s:ince he has not appealed against the order of the ,qigh coutt, we have nol examined the verar:, y, of allegations made against him. However, as far , :: the Appellants are concerned. the allegations nade against them being generat and omnibus, ,1 t not warrant prosecution. 22. Therefore, upon consrderatnn of the ret ),/ant circumstances and in the absence of any spectT : role aftibuted to the accused appe ants. it wou, j be unjust if the Appeltants are forced to go throu) t the tribulations of a trial. l.e, general and ort rr:lus allegations cannot manifest n a situation wher, the relatives of the complainant,s husband are forc ,(! to undergo tial. lt has been hightighted by this co ,ft in 9 vaied instances, that a ciminal tial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged." 04(g). Further, relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v Stafe of A.P.,3 wherein it was held that: "15. Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fefter on the powers ot the investryating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier pafi of the Section, excepl with the previous sanctbn of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of tial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. lt is only after the decision to try the offender in lndia was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central government would 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 fo Section 188 CrP.C However, the tial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accu*d in respect of offences having been committed in lndia and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences tor which sanction would be required." 3 lzor r; s scc szz I I I I I l i i I i t \ 10

05. Learned counsel for the responde nt No.2 as well as learned Additional public prosecutor i; one tone submitted that there are specific allegatior s against the petitioner and the truth or ctherwise would :ome out only after conducting full-fledged trial before the rial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition.

06. For the sake of convenience, lection 1gg of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder: "188. Offence committed oulside tndia:- Wti )n an offence is commifted outside lndia.- (a) by a citizen of lndia, whether on the high s )irs or elsewhere, or (b) by any person, not being such citizen, on ar / ship or aircraft registered in lndia, he may be dealt rtth in respecf of suah offences as if it had been cort nitted at any place within lndia at which he may be fo,r ttl, Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any >,F the preceding Sections of this Chapter, no such o rt>nce shall be inquired into or tried in lndia except v,t h the previous sanction of the Centrat Government

07. As per the record, it is an admittec fact that the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the victim are l:lally married and have moved to United States of Ameri,; r They led happy marital life for some time. Thereafter, s; rrne disputes arose between the couple, and the petitioner_e:cused No.1 filed a petition for divorce before the Circuit () rr:rt, Howard ,/' 11 County, Maryland and the said Court vide Order dated

03.01.2023 granted absolute divorce and permanent custody of minor child was given to the daughter of the respondent No.2. Further, the petitioner-accused No.1 was directed to pay $1488 per month towards child support for the minor child. The respondent No.2 on behalf of her daughter filed F.C.O.P.No.1734 of 2022 on 26.09.2022 before the learned Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking for restitution of conjugal rights

08. On a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the complaint was lodged by the father of the respondent No.2 with respect to the incidents alleged to have occurred in the United States of America. The statement of his daughter was recorded by the Police through c, WhatsApp call, and the entirety of the allegations pertains to incidents said to have happened in the United States of America. Although certain allegations of physical assault have been made, there is no medical record or staternent of any competent medical practitioner to substantiate the same. It is to be noted that there lvere certain allegations of misappropriation of jewellery and demands of additional I I I I l l : I 12 dowry. However, the charge sheet do ncrl disclose the specific amount allegedly demanded towzr ds' additional dowry, or there are no details of the alle5l':d manner of misappropriation of jewellary.

09. A significant legal infirmity em€r les from the procedural lapse concerning the very in I ation of the prosecution. For prosecuting an lndian citizert for an offence alleged to have been committed outsirj > lndia, the prosecuting agency is mandatorily required 1 ) obtain prior sanction from the Central Government as contemplated under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. A perusal r't Section 188 makes it clear that the proviso expressly st; es "Provrded that, notwithstanding anything in any of he preceding secflons of this Chapter, no such offence s/r r// be inquired into or tried in lndia except with the previous : anction of the Centrat Government." The statutory manc ate therefore requires that sanction must first be accorded ly the Central Government, and only thereafter can the c€rr el be inquired into or proceeded with. However, in the pre sent case, no such sanction was obtained by the prosecuting ,egency This omission is not a mere procedural irregularity lut constitutes 13 a jurisdictional defect that goes to the very root of the prosecution.

10. Further, in the present case, the entire alleged incidents took place in United States of America and the victim being the wife of the petitioner-accused No.1 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 lodged the complaint lt is evident from the record that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the daughter of respondent No 2 has already been dissolved by an Order of the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland, which was ordered, adjudged and decreed in the presence and agreement of both the parties [Vloreover, the respondent No.2 has no personal or direct knowledge about the incidents which took place between the petitioner and his wife, so as to adduce any evidence before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of the respondent No 2 will be I L t ! r I l I i -n T i. ]. I Nt f t a E I I r I tI x t I t4 treated as 'hearsay evidence', which is irr; rdmissible in evidence

11. ln view of the above facts and cir: lmstances of the case, this Court is of the considered vi,: ru' that in the absence of the mandatory sanction of the Central Government, cofjpled with the fact that the mar iage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the darr thter of the respondent No.2 has already been dissolved t y a decree of divorce in the presence and with the consent :' both parties, and in light of the further fact that the resporrr ent No.2 has no personal knowledge of the incidents alk,ged to have occurred in the United States of America, there are no grounds to proceed with the criminal triil against the petitioner-accused No.1. Hence, the contiruation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused Nc 1 amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition s allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-ac<;r tsed No 1 in C.C.No.5070 of 2022 on the file of the learnerl Xlll Additional 15 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SDI AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// \-./ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI ' (For Her Lordship's kind Perusal) To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad' Z. Cnamatfrota Bhaskur Reddy, S7o. Late Chandrashekhar Reddy' aged about -OZy"ro,OccBuilderFi/o.FlatNo.513ABlock'UshaEnclave'Srinagar i I I i i I i I L I I i Colony, Hyderabad.

3. one ic t6 snt. T s ANIRUDH REDDY Advocate [oPUC] ;. i;" Copies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. 11 LRCopies O. fne UnOer Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi T.Thesecretary,TelanganaAdvocatesAssociationLibrary'HighCourtforthe State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad B. Two CD CoPies PK,?SL s^q HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 CRLP.No.14410 ot 2024 orJ I ,L- ( * lrlr i),,{i.r 1 I l[B 202 .$ * Ell '':fi9' - --a:: - CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. 22- Pr4l, tb'l>L