Back
AP High Court Quashes Case Against NRI In-Laws for Lack of Sanction
In a significant ruling that reinforces the procedural requirements for prosecuting , the has quashed criminal proceedings against an NRI brother-in-law and sister-in-law accused of cruelty, criminal intimidation, and dowry-related offences. The court held that the absence of from the under rendered the prosecution for alleged acts committed in the United States legally infirm, and that the remaining allegations concerning incidents in India were too vague to sustain the charges.
The Case: Allegations of Cruelty Across Continents
The petitioners, Girish Chandra Yadapalli and Lakshmi Deepika Neeli , were arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5 in a criminal case initiated by Mounika Rajitha Kothapalli Yadlapalli, the wife of accused No. 1. The complainant alleged that after her marriage in , she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and his relatives, including the petitioners, both in the United States and in India. The charge sheet included offences under , as well as .
The allegations were two-fold: first, that while the complainant was in the USA from to , the petitioners harassed her, and accused No. 4 (the brother-in-law) beat her in front of her husband; and second, that after her return to India, the accused collectively demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 1 crore and threatened her with dire consequences.
The Legal Hurdle: Sanction Missing
The petitioners’ counsel, , argued that the entire prosecution was vitiated because the investigating officer had not obtained the of the as mandated by . That provision states that an offence committed outside India by a citizen can be inquired into or tried in India only with such sanction. The court agreed, noting that the requirement is procedural and cannot be bypassed.
Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed:
“It is no more that the procedure needs to be followed and adhered to scrupulously in the event the incident occurred in a country (other than India). Since there is no sanction obtained by the Investigating Officer for prosecuting accused Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of offences committed outside India, the same constitutes a which cannot be overlooked.”
The court relied on a series of precedents, including the ’s decisions in and , as well as coordinate bench rulings from the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts, all of which underscored that without , the trial cannot proceed beyond the .
Vague Allegations on Home Soil
Turning to the incidents alleged to have occurred in India after , the court found that the charge sheet contained only sweeping, . The relevant paragraph alleged that “A1 to A5 threatened LW1 with dire consequences if she fails to give Rs. 1 crore towards addl. Dowry” and that the accused “abused LWs 2 to 5 and told to do whatever they could.” The court noted that no specific dates, places, or individual acts were attributed to the petitioners.
Citing the ’s judgment in and , the court held that such generalized accusations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Justice Gedela emphasized:
“In the absence of specific details of the alleged incidents of crime, the allegations are vague and omnibus. The complaint and charge sheet do not mention any allegations specific in nature and lack the inherent quality and ingredients to attract .”
Precedents in Play
The judgment extensively referenced earlier decisions to fortify its reasoning. In , the had cautioned against roping in relatives without . In , the apex court quashed proceedings against a brother and sister of the husband where the FIR merely made . The found these principles squarely applicable to the present case, noting that the petitioners—who lived in the USA—could not be implicated based on vague claims of harassment.
Final Verdict
Allowing the criminal petition under , the court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 2057 of 2021 insofar as they related to accused Nos. 4 and 5. The order makes clear that the investigating agency must scrupulously follow when acts occur abroad, and that courts must be vigilant against blanket accusations in matrimonial disputes.
The ruling is likely to provide relief to many NRI family members who find themselves dragged into litigation based on omnibus allegations, while reinforcing the importance of in cross-border criminal cases.
