SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(UK) 478

2011 (2) N.C.C. 875
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and Surinder Singh Nijjar
SLP (Crl.) No. 7640 of 2008
THOTA VENKATESHWARLU – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF A.P. TR. PRINCL. SEC. & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 02.09.2011

For the Petitioner:Mr. G.V.R. Choudary, Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Mr. A. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Ms. Sawita, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Advocates

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 188 — Proviso — Offence committed by an Indian outside India — Inquiry into — Necessity of previous sanction of Central Government under — Upto the stage of taking cognizance — No previous sanction of Central Government in terms of the proviso to Sec. 188, Criminal Code required — However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without previous sanction of Central Government. (Paras 8 to 13)

       n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 188 & izfrcU/k & ,d Hkkjrh; }kjk Hkkjr ls ckgj vijk/k fd;k x;k ftlds lEcU/k esa foospuk djus gsrq dsUæh; ljdkj dh iwokZuqefr dh vko';drk laKku ysus dh LVst rd visf{kr Fkh & /kkjk 188 CrPC ds izfrca/k ds rgr dsUæh; ljdkj dh dksbZ iwokZuqefr ugha yh xbZ tks visf{kr Fkh & rFkkfi laKku dh LVst ls vkxs dsUæh; ljdkj dh iwokZuqefr ds fcuk dk;Zokgh ugha py ldrhA ¼izLrj 8 ls 13½

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. — This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2008, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008 dismissing the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 pending before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki. This case raises certain interesting questions of law and to appreciate the same, some of the facts are required to be reproduced.

2. The Petitioner, Thota Venkateswarlu, was married to the Respondent No.2, Parvathareddy Suneetha, on 27th November, 2005, as per Hindu traditions and customs in the Sitharama Police Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. At the time of marriage Rs. 12 lakhs in cash, 45 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 50,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam is alleged to have been given to the Accused Nos. 1 to 4, who are the husband, the mother-in-law and other relatives of the husband. According to the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner left India for Botswana in January 2006 without taking her along with him. However, in February, 2006, the Respondent No.2 went to Botswana to join the Petitioner. While in Botswana, the Respondent No.2 is alleged to have been severely ill-treated by the Petitioner and apart from the above, various demands were also made including a demand for additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs. On account of such physical and mental torture not only by the Petitioner/husband, but also by his immediate relatives, who continued to demand additional dowry by way of phone calls from India, the Respondent No.2 addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, from Botswana and the same was registered as Case (Crl.) No.25 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 506, Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.’ for short) together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986, by the Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. Upon investigation into the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2, the Inspector of Police, Medarametla, filed a charge-sheet in CC No. 307 of 2007 in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District, under Sections 498-A and 506, I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioner and his father, mother and sister, who were named as Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid case and by his order dated 19th February, 2007, ordered issuance of summons against the accused.

3. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was questioned by the Petitioner and the other co-accused before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 3629 and 2746 of 2008 respectively and a prayer was made for quashing of the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court by its order dated 27th August, 2008, allowed Criminal Petition No. 2746 of 2008 filed by the Accused Nos.2 to 4 and quashed the proceedings against them. However, Criminal Petition No. 3629 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed The present Special Leave Petition is directed against the said order of the High Court rejecting the Petitioner’s petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and declining to quash Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 initiated against

him.

4. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court have raised certain important questions which warrant the attention of this Court.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as will appear from the complaint made by the Respondent No. 2 to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh on 22nd March, 2007, no grounds had been made out therein to continue with the proceedings in India, having regard to the prov
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top