Criminal Petition No. 15805 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.'1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1592 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Hct, 1961 (for short D.P Act) 2 Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Jagan [Vlohan, learned counsel. for respondent No.2-de faclo complainant and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record

3. Respondent No.2-de faclo complainant, is the father of the victim/LW-6 namely f,lagapuri @ Bommaraju Swetha, who is the wife of the petitioner-accused No.1. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of petitioner was perforrned with victim on 04.12.2016. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given to the petitioner. After marriage, the couple resided at the house of de facto complainant for a week, during \ 2 which the petitioner allegedly quarreled with the vict m, expressing dissatisfaction over the dowry and demanded additrrtnal amounts. The de facfo complainant pacified the matter and se.rt the victim to her matrimonial home, where they lived amicabl'7 for about two months. Subsequently, the victim moved to Australia for her higher studies and the petitioner to went to Pune fcr his job. The de facto complainant has given amounts to the preiitioner for his visa. Later, the petitioner joined the victim in Australia, where he allegedly subjected her to physical and verbal abus;e accusing her of infidelity, and also demanded additional dowry Upon being informed by the victim, lhe de facto complainant aoproached the petitioner's parents. lnstead of admonishing the ltetitioner, the parents of the petitioner allegedly suppo(ed the ,lemands of lhe petitioner and abused the de facto complainant \y'rlhile so, the victim was blessed with a son. After the birth of tre.ir son, on lhe fifth day of delivery, the petitioner, instigated by hrs; family, abused and assaulted the victim, reiterating his dowry rlemands, and thereafter left her and the child in Australia and retLtrted to lndia. A panchayat was held in the presence of elders, during which the accused persons allegedly abused lhe de facto cornplainant and others in filthy language. When requested to sign on the documents for the child's visa, the petitioner refused to do so, unless the demand of additional dowry was fulfilled tlubsequenfly, 3 the petitioner and other accused in the crime sent a divorce notice to the victim, stating it would be withdrawn only upon receipt of additional dowry. As the victim remained in Australia, her father, lhe de facto complainant, has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner and others, for the said acts of cruelty, harassment, and illegal dowry demands

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 4.1 . The petitioner has always acted responsibly towards his wife and child. He never harassed the victim either physically or mentally, nor did he ever demand any additional dowry from her or her family. The further allegation that the petitioner abandoned the victim and their minor son in Australia is denied. ln fact, during the period of demonetization, when there was an acute shortage of cash, amounts were transferred by the petitioner to the account of the de facto complainant. These amounts were subsequenfly returned by the de facfo complainant to the petitioner,s account. Taking undue advantage of the said transaction, the de facto complainant has foisted the present complaint against the petitioner with all false allegations only to harass and blackmail him.

4.2. From the very beginning of the marriage, the victim acted indifferently towards the family members of the petitioner and she 4 resided only for a few days at the matrimonial home before leaving to Australia to pursue her higher studies. At her request, the petitioner left his job in lndia and went to Australia at his own expense. During their stay, the victim was mr;treated by the petitioner, humiliating him before his friends, denyin,l his entry into the house, escalating minor disputes into serious co'rflicts and also physically assaulted him. The victim used to take :hr: salary of the petitioner. When the victim became pregnant, her carents joined her and altogether subjected the petitioner to iil-lreatment and physical assault, resulting in bleeding injuries. t)espite this, the petitioner bore all the expenses related to the birth of their son on

17.01 .2019. Feeling distressed, he thought of ending his life in Australia, but upon the advice of his parents and wt-.ll-wishers, he returned to lndia on 10.02.2019. After coming down to lndia, the petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2019 seeking clivorce from the victim. Subsequently, after about one year, the pres;ent complaint was lodged by the de facfo complainant against il-e petitioner and his family members.

4.3. All the allegations made against the petitrorrer have taken place in Australia, where the husband and wife lived and therefore, the prosecution ought to have obtained mandatory sanction under Section '1 88 Cr.P.C. from the Central Government lr support of his / 5 contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. Sfafe of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and anotherl.

4.4. ln the instant case, the matter is coming up for cross- examination of PW1 in the trial Court, however, no sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. was obtained by the Police. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner 5 Learned counsel for respondent No.2-de faclo complainant admitted that all the incidents have happened in Australia. However, there was one incident of demand for additional dowry in lndia, when the victim and petitioner visited the house of de facto complainant immediately after their marriage. Even if one incident has happened in lndia, there is no requirement of obtaining sanction of the Central Government to proceed with the trial. The victim or her parents never harassed or beat the petitioner. The petitioner has created a fictitious story to gain sympathy by false twisting the facts. He further submits that the petitioner declined to sign the visa documents of their son, thereby failing to fulfill his legal obligations and consequenUy depriving the child of permanent citizenship. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled '12ott; s scc szz 6 =-- -- 1 ..1 against him can only be known after conducting fr rll-fledged trial before the trial Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss tre petition.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended on the similar lines of learned counsel for responderl No.2-de facto complaina nt.

7. For proper adjudication of the matter, Sr-,ction 1gg of Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder "188. Offence committed outside lndia:- lvhen an offence is committed outside lndia:- (a) by a citizen of lndia, whether on the hi11f,..eas or elsewhere, or (b) by any person, not being such citizen, on at,y sllip or aircraft registered in lndia, he may be dealt with in respect of such oftencos as rF 1 had been committed at any place within lndia itl ,ttrjch he may be found; Provided that, notwithstanding anything in art,t of the preceding Seclrons of this Chapter, no such offeni e shall be inquired into or tried in lndia except with the p,evious sanctrcn of the Central Government."

8. Admittedly, all the incidents narrated in the r;omplaint have taken place in Australia, except for one instance r,r,hich allegedly happened in lndia. Thus, it has to be examined as o whether the provisions of Section '188 of Cr.P.C. would apply in ltis case.

9. The only incident alleged to have occurred i-r lndia, as per the complaint, is that after the marriage, the petitroner and victim resided at the house of the de faclo complainant for about a week, 7 during which period, the petitioner is alleged to have engaged in a quarrel with the victim, expressing dissatisfaction with the dowry provided and demanded additional amounts. Except the aforesaid vague allegation, there is no specific instance or overt act of cruelty, harassment, or unlawful demand alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while in lndia. lt is admitted in the complaint itself that after the said incident, the de facto complainant has pacified the issue, and the victim subsequently joined the petitioner at her matrimonial home, where they amicably lived together for about two months. The subsequent period of harmonious living between the petitioner and the victim significantly weakens the credibility of the prior vague allegation and does not support the case of cruelty or harassment within lndia. Hence, the alleged incident which has occurred in lndia does not constitute a case against the petitioner for the offences alleged

10. Crucially, the most significant legal infirmity lies in the procedural lapse ccncerning the prosecution itself. ln lhota Venkateswarlu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that up to the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 1BB Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government

11. A perusal of Section 188 of Cr.p C. disclos;e,; that when an offence is committed outside lndia, no such r>ffence shall be inquired into or tried in lndia except with the prer/i,:)us sanction of the Central Government.

12. ln the instant case, the matter is coming up for cross_ examination of PWl . However, the prosecution has failed to obtain the mandatory sanction as required under ljection .l gg of Cr.P C. This omission is not a mere procedural rrre..gularity, but a jurisdictional defect that goes to the very root of the prosecution, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. The aiores;rid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present cas,: '1 3. Apart from the above, it is pertinent to note that the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2-de far;to complainant, who is the father of the victim. The de facto complainant does not have personal knowledge of the alleged inciderrts which took place between the petitioner and his wife. As slr:h, he is not a direct witness to the alleged acts and therefore i:; incapable of adducing evidence before the trial Court. An y statement or testimony given by the de facto complainant, in tre absence of i 9 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.

14. As seen from the complaint, it is evident that the marriage of victim was performed with the petitioner on 04.12.2016. The victim and petitioner left to Australia on 26.Q2.2017 and 03.'12.2017 respectively. The petitioner returned to lndia on 10.02.20 19 However, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant against the petitioner and his family members on

08.12.20'19 i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint. lf really I \ there was harassment from the very inception of the marriage, the victim ought to have lodged the complaint much earlier. The I I de facto complainant has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry meted out by the petitioner either in lndia or Australia, except stating that he has harassed the victim physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. 'l 5. From any perspective, there are no prima facie grounds to proceed with the criminal trial against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot be subjected to the ordeal of ti'ial, especially when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of dowry against him, combined with the - - --'1 10 prosecution's failure to obtain the mandatory sanction under Section '188 of Cr.P,C - 16 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allc,wed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.l IT C C No.1592 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Jurior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial tVagistrate of First Class at Hanurnakonda. are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applic,:tions, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR G- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 . The V Additional Judciial First Class Magistrate at Waran,ral. 2. The Station House Officer, WPS Warangal City Police Sitation. Warangal District.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sta:e of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri P Ravi Shanker, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri P Jagan Mohan Perumandla, Advocate [{-IPUC] 6. Two CD Copies NVI]/PSI- 0ft HIGH COURT DATED:1210912025 ORDER CRLP.No.15805 ot 2024 ,,,; 2 3 Sr:P 2ff25 l)t ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION ( t1 .1 ),\La 7 o t