ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.451 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent – State and Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The 2nd respondent filed complaint stating that she was married to the petitioner on 30.10.2014. The marriage was on grand scale and the parents of the 2nd respondent gave gold ornaments and other gifts, which were given to this petitioner and his parents. Petitioner was living in US and after marriage, the 2nd respondent joined him in the US. Petitioner started harassing the 2nd respondent for Rs.15 lakhs to repay debts and she was compelled to lead a secluded life in the US. There were no acquaintances nor communication was permitted by the petitioner and over a period of time in the US, she was not even permitted to go to Church on Sundays and her communication with her friends and relatives were restricted.

4. There are several acts of harassment, which are narrated that have taken place in the US. The 2nd respondent delivered a male child in the US. Thereafter, she came back to India and started living with her father, mother and her son. Petitioner tortured the complainant physically and mentally during the period of her stay in the USA. After coming to India also she was harassed for additional dowry, for which reason, she filed the complaint. Jewellery that was given at the time of marriage and after the marriage was also misappropriated. On the basis of the complaint, the Court has taken cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court by order dated 09.04.2021 in Criminal Petition No.12254 of 2017 had quashed the proceedings against A2 and A3, who are parents-in-law. Further, all the major allegations that are leveled against this petitioner are in the US, for which reason there is restriction imposed from taking cognizance unless the Central Government grants sanction.

6. Section 188 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows:

“188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.”

For the reason of there being no sanction, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate ignoring the provision under Section 188 of Cr.P.C has to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that though the alleged harassment has taken place in US, the marriage was held in Hyderabad and subsequent to the 2nd respondent returning from US, she was staying in Hyderabad, for which reason, there is no necessity of obtaining sanction as required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. He further argued that there has to be some evidence that has been collected outside India to enable grant of sanction by the Central Government. For the said reason, the proceedings against this petitioner have to be continued.

8. The offence under Section 498-A of IPC is continuing offence. Admittedly, the marriage had taken place in Hyderabad and she was compelled to return back to India along with her son. The acts of the petitioner herein in continuously harassing the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent allegedly coming back to