1. Petitioner, who is A-1 in the calendar case in C.C. No. 1694 of 2012 pending on the file of learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, came forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings in the said case.

2. On 05.04.2010, in Bangalore, Poonam (second respondent / defacto complainant) married Muralikrishna (petitioner/A-1), who is son of Hari Rao (A-2) and Shashikala (A-3). A-1's sister Lakshmi Subhashini (A-5) married Rupesh (A-4). A-4's close relative Balaji Rao arranged the marriage of second respondent with A-1. A-1 is working in USA. A-4 and A-5 are also living in USA.

3. Immediately after their marriage the second respondent and A-1 spend their days in A-1's house at No.5, Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. The second respondent discontinued her MBA studies. On 14.05.2010, second respondent went along with her husband to USA. On 05.12.2010, second respondent returned to her parents house in Bangalore. On 18.03.2011, she was sent back to USA to join her husband. Again, on 23.07.2011, on the ticket purchased by her father, second respondent returned to her parents' house. On 14.09.2011, second respondent lodged complaint as against A-1 to A-5 alleging that they have tortured her for more dowry and have also taken away her shridhana articles consisting of gold jewellery and many household articles. The first respondent, namely, the Sub Inspector of Police, W-23, All Women Police Station, Royapettah, Chennai registered a case in crime No. 6 of 2011 for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. A-2 to A-5 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

4. Concluding his investigation, the second respondent filed the final report before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai showing A-1 as an absconding accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 1694 of 2012 for offences under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC as against A-1 to A-5. On 10.01.2013, in Crl.O.P.No. 15524 of 2012, this Court quashed the proceedings as against A-4 and A-5. Now, the case is pending as against A-1 and his parents, namely, A-2 and A-3. A-1 alone came forward to this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings as against him raising certain grounds.

5. Mr.A.Raghunathan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the offences alleged as against the petitioner. There is no details as to when, where the demand of dowry was made. So also the Sridhana articles were entrusted. Further, there is no allegation that A-1 demanded dowry and due to the failure to satisfy it, she has been harassed by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the essential ingredient for the offence of cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498-A of IPC is lacking in this case. Thus, the trial as against the petitioner /A-1 may not go.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the dowry demand and the torture were alleged to have been taken place in USA. In such circumstances, as per the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., previous sanction of the Central Government is necessary to try the offence under Section 498-A IPC alleged as against the petitioner. In this case, as on date, no such sanction was obtained. So with respect to the said offence as against A-1, now the trial could not be conducted.

7. In support of his said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel cited the following decisions:-

(i) THOTA VENKATESWARLU -Vs- STATE OF A.P. AND ANOTHER (2011 (9) SCC 527);

(ii) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.P.No. 2976 of 2009 and 4921 of 2010, dated 01.03.2011 (RAJESH GUTTA -Vs- STATE OF A.P., AND OTHERS);

(iii) HARI SANKAR AND OTHERS -Vs- DEEPA LAKSHMI AND ANOTHER, (2013-1-L.W. 121).

8. On the other hand, Mr.P.Haridas, the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent contended that the s