Specific allegations of demand and obtaining of dowry require a trial, but prosecution for offences committed outside India under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC requires sanction from the Central Government.

JUDGMENT

R Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The marriage between the petitioner, who was working in the United States of America, and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 05.08.2001 in Vijayawada. Thereafter, the petitioner went to United States of America on 15.08.2001. The de facto complainant joined him in the United States of America on 23.08.2001. They lived together till April, 2002. When, the de facto complainant gave a complaint against the petitioner to the police authorities in the United States of America on 26.03.2002, the couple started living separately from 01.04.2002 and stayed separately in the United States of America till November, 2003. The de facto complainant had then returned to India and filed a complaint against seven (7) accused persons on 01.12.2003. The complaint was registered as Crime No.359 of 2003 of Suryaraopet L & O Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of investigation, accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 in the complaint were dropped and a charge sheet was filed against four (4) accused person for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This charge sheet was taken cognizance by the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and numbered as C.C.No.555 of 2005. Due to the absence of the petitioner herein, the case was split-up and the trial was completed against accused Nos.2 to 4, who were acquitted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. However, they were found guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 to 4 had filed Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. In the said appeal the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 was affirmed. However, the sentence was modified to payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.3,000/- by each of the accused. The sentence relating to rigorous imprisonment was set aside.

3. The split up case against the petitioner herein was numbered as C.C.No.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the same is pending.

4. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. The charge sheet filed by the investigating officer states that in the course of negotiations of the alliance prior to the marriage no monetary terms were discussed. However, allegations were made that just prior to the marriage there was harassment on the part of the accused, due to which dowry was paid. The relevant part of the charge sheet reads as follows:

"Even prior to the marriage A2 to A4 started harassing L.Ws.1 to 3 for getting money. In the first week of June 2001 A2 demanded and took an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the pretext of performing some puja in the third week of June, A3 called L.W.1 to her house in Ashok Nagar and A3 along with A2 demanded illegally and amount of Rs.3 lakhs and threatened her to give the amount within 2 days or face cancellation of the marriage due to pressure of A2 & A3, LW.1 gave Rs.3 lakhs which amounts to nothing but dowry. Again A2 demanded LW.3 Rs.2 lakhs in the second week of July, 2001 and as there is no other alternative LW.3 gave Rs.2 lakhs to A2. Again one wee