IMPORTANT POINT
Where the husband had obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage from competent Court in USA complainant wife would be incompetent to lodge a complaint for offence under Section 498 I.P.C.

ORDER

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. — Petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings pending before the First Additional CMM, Bangalore in CC No. 426 of 2003 regarding taking cognizance of offence and issuing process for the offence under section 498A, IPC is concerned.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader. Counsel representing the other respondent is not present.

3. Brief facts are: The 2nd petitioner is a native of Bangalore. One Dwarakanath is the husband and the 2nd petitioner. He was working as an Assistant Manager in Indian Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore. The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner. After his graduation in Engineering, he went to USA i.e., to the State of Oklahama. The daughter of the 2nd accused petitioner—Usha Dwarakanath also worked in the USA in connection with her employment. The husband of the 3rd accused is the 4th accused who is employed in WIPRO Company. The 1st accused/petitioner is married to one Ranjitha daughter of one S. Prakash. After marriage Ranjitha joined her husband at Oklahama, USA and lead marital life for some time. Differences arose later. According to the petitioner Ranjitha was not keeping good health throughout and without any rhyme or reason she used to quarrel with him. Apart from that, Ranjitha also suffered from an incurable skin disease. In this context and due to her arrogant behaviour, the 1st petitioner had applied for dissolution of the marriage before the District Court for Tulsa County, State of Oklahama and obtained a decree on 19.8.2002 and the marriage was dissolved. In this connection, the father of Ranjitha, started to intimidate and threaten. the 2nd petitioner and others and also used to make threatening calls.

4. According to the petitioners, subsequently a case also was filed against the father of Ranjitha for the offence under Section 506 Part-B, IPC and Section 448 since he threatened the 2nd petitioner that he would take away her life. However, in this context, in retaliation, a complaint was filed by Ranjitha under Section 489A, IPC and also under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered in No.108/2002 before the Shankarapuram Police. Further, on registration of the crime, the police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners in CC 426/2003 before the CMM, Bangalore for the offence under Section 498A, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said action of the Police on the basis of the complaint filed by Ranjitha before the Shankarapuram Police and filing of the charge-sheet under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is under challenge in this petition on various grounds.

5. Heard the counsels representing the parties.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree of divorce passed by the Oklahama Court was sought to be challenged before the Civil Court at Bangalore seeking for a declaration and to set aside the decree passed by the said Court and, as per Section 188 of Cr.P.C., if the offence is committed outside India then necessarily it cannot be proceeded against the said person without the sanction of the Central Government and further submitted, as per Section 498A, I.P.C. when there is dissolution of marriage by the Court by Oklahama wherein the complainant and the 1st petitioner had together lead marital life, if it was to be challenged before the Civil Court at Bangalore, necessarily it should be with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Apart from that, even for the offences committed outside the country in which Indian Citizen are involved, Central Government previous sanction ought to have been obtained before enquiry into the matter or before the trial is commenced. Accordingly, he submitted that a memo was filed in the Civil Suit filed at Bangalore to set aside the decree passed for dissolution of marriage and the suit was withdrawn as the matter w