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 grant stay of all further proceedings CC.No.505 ot 2021, on the file of lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 5O4,506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners including dispensing the personal appearance of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NARAPARAJU AVANEESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL No.14788 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.505 of 2021 on the file of lV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 lPC.

2. Heard Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint discloses that the offences alleged to have taken place at USA and thus, sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C., is essential and that without any sanction the prosecution has been launched, thus, the proceedings are vitiated and therefore, they have to be quashed against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. Nos.61 10 and 6074 of 2022.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that \ the trarlfer of amounts is into the account of the petitioner in 2 EfO.J Crl.P. No.UTAa ol 2025 lndia. Thus, there is no necessity to obtain sanction in these proceedings and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The recitals of charge sheet point out that the petitioner- accused has deceitfully made wrongful gain out of the money received from one Ajay Taxak through LW.3-Bharat Reddy, which belongs to LW.'l-de facfo complainant and further he acted in a manner intimidating lhe de facto complainant. Therefore, they are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 lPC. lt is alleged that the de facto complainant authorized LW.3-Bharath Reddy and informed Ajay Taxak to handover the money in US dollars to LW.3. Thus, the petitioner herein, who is resident of lndia and claimed to be a Green Card Holder of USA, is alleged to have received the amount in US Dollars into his account and has not returned the same, thereby cheated the de facfo complainant. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute the petitioner. Section 188 Cr.P.C., is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: J Efo,J c.l.P. No.ralaa ol 2025 Section 188 of Cr.P.C.: "188. Offence commifted outside lndia When an offence is committed outside lndia-

1. by a citizen of lndia, whether on the high seas or elsewhere;

2. by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in lndia, he may be dealt with in respect of offence as if it had been committed at any place within at which he may be found; Provlded 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."

7. Thus, even if a part of the offence is alleged to have occurred in lndia, sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not required. The recitals of the charge sheet point out the details of the statement of account and the extent of money that is being transferred into the account of the petitioner. Further, the prosecution has collected the bank statements. The bank official is also listed as a witness. Further LW.3 is listed as an eye witness. The veracity of these witnesses and the truth in the allegations can be culled out during the course of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of a ! coordiqate of Bench of this Court in Crl.P. Nos.6110 and 6e74 of 2022, in which offences are under Sections 498-A,417,406 and \ \ 4 EfD,J Ctt.P. No.l1fOlt ol 2425 506 IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it was that: "that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 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 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered. As this Court is not satisfied that the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.'l to 3 in the C.C., as having been committed in lndia, this Court is of the opinion that none of offences can be tried in lndia."

8. The facts of the above case differ from the present case. ln the present case, the offences are under Sections 420,504 and 506 lPC. The alleged offender is a resident of lndia and received the amounts into his own account deceitfully and has not repaid the same to LW.1. Hence, no sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., is required in the present case. Therefore, it is opined that it is not fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before trial court. 5 Ef4J Crr-P- N.1a7rt ot 2,,25

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and he shall be present as and when his presence is required by the trial court during the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station, Malakpet Division. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI NARAPARAJU AVANEESH, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COUR DATED:2711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14788 ot 2025 .IHE STA l. t (J I 0E[ 2825 * .t t-- r., jP.'.: -",i* DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION