The judgment established the principle that complaints involving day-to-day domestic quarrels between spouses are maintainable in law without the need for previous sanction under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the specific allegations against the accused.

The first petitioner is the husband of the second Respondent/Defacto Complainant, petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner and petitioners 4 and 5 are the sisters of the first petitioner. They are arrayed as Accused No. 1 to 5 in FIR No.10 of 2012 on the file of the All Women Adayar Police Station, Chennai-20 for the alleged offence under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. They have come forward with this petition seeking to quash the FIR No.10 of 2012 on the file of the first Respondent.

2. The allegations in the complaint are:- On 2nd June, 2010, the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent took place at Chennai. Right from the date of marriage, the husband has forced the wife to do unpleasant sexual acts. The day after the wedding there were accusations and gossips about the insufficient gold ornaments and other dowry articles brought by the wife from her parents during marriage. Even during physical intimacy, whenever the wife refused to part with his unpleasant demands, the husband used to abuse her with filthy words and physically harass her very badly. The husband used to behave with his wife in an unusual manner. The husband ensured that the complainant don't have any communication with any of her friends, relatives by denying her a telephone access, computer and any sort of communication device while she was at USA. The wife had no access to mail box or other household keys and no telephone connection was allowed to used she was like a caged bird. Most of the times the phone cable would be unplugged or disconnected so she would not be able to receive any calls from her family. The wife had no privacy or privilege of freedom to here communications amounting to a Human Rights Violation.

3. Further in her complaint, she has stated that the remaining Accused persons encouraged all the sexual extortion acts of the first petitioner. The first petitioner forcibly capturing several nude and obscene pictures of her and threatening her that it would be published on line in the social networking and pornographic sites in USA if she is not meeting their demands of dowry.

4. From the perusal of the complaint it is seen that the first petitioner has vitiated the sex behaviour on the complainant which she could not bear with. The first accused tortured her and kept in a room and forced to take contraceptive pills which developed adverse affect of her health. It has been opined by the Doctor at USA when she went for medical examination. Even she was not allowed to convey to Doctor about her personal sufferings. Her personal life was such a precarious position commenced from India and proceeded to up to United States.

5. On 26.10.2011, Diwali day, the accused demanded from the complainant to bring the amount worth about Rs.25.00 lakhs and gold ornaments of not less than 50 sovereigns. This was facilitated by her father who ensured making available a single return ticket as demanded by the first petitioner, so that they will allow her to go to India. With the above allegations the complaint was given by the complainant against the accused i.e. the present petitioners.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised three grounds to quash the FIR against the petitioners:

(i) The occurrence took place only at the jurisdiction of United States of America, therefore, the first Respondent has no jurisdiction to register the case.

(ii) As the petitioners are the residents of United States of America, the FIR registered by the first respondent against the petitioners is not maintainable for want of sanction from the Central Government as provided under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. To substantiate the said contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohandoss and four others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai and another reported in 2003 (3) CTC 54 wherein it ha