Prosecution of an Indian citizen for offences committed outside India requires prior sanction from the Central Government, making proceedings without it legally unsustainable.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.9262 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 4 98-A, 406 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short D.P. Act).

2. Heard Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2-de facto complainant is the father of victim, who is the wife of petitioner-accused No.1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of petitioner was performed with victim on 31.03.2019. At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and 40 tulas of jewellery was given to the petitioner. After marriage, victim and petitioner stayed at Kondapur for 23 days. Later, they left to USA due to petitioner’s job. Though they were living together, there was no physical relationship between the spouses and the petitioner used to sleep separately in the bed room. When the victim tried to move closer to him, he used to comment in a negative sense and also harassed her for additional dowry. Later, at request of victim, with great difficulty, they had co-habitation. Then the petitioner expressed that he is suffering with Erectile Dysfunction as such he avoided her. However, the victim conceived. But petitioner being not happy for the same used to harass her. Thereafter, victim was hospitalized with Lupus-Nephritis and in the procedure to have medical examination and treatment, she was aborted. The Doctors advised the petitioner and victim to attend medical counseling and examination for further plan of having children. Subsequently, the petitioner left victim and absconded from the home without giving any information. Petitioner filed a petition for divorce in the American Court. Since the petitioner cheated the victim by marrying her by suppressing his disease of Erectile Dysfunction and harassed her demanding additional dowry, the father of victim i.e., respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner-accused No.1 and others for the aforesaid offences.

4. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. All the allegations made in the complaint by the de facto complainant took place in USA. However, the mandatory sanction of the Central Government as is required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained. If the petitioner is suffering from Erectile Dysfunction, the question of victim conceiving does not arise. The petitioner never harassed the victim to bring additional dowry. In fact, he took good care of the victim and he himself transferred Rs.38,01,000/- from his Bank account at USA to the Bank account of the victim at Sangareddy, India. Both the parties were granted divorce by mutual consent on 04.05.2023 in the Court of USA. The Marital Settlement Agreement also contains a specific clause stating that the funds previously transferred to the father of victim shall remain his property, and the petitioner expressly waived any right to claim return of those funds from the victim or her father.

4.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Thotapally Sai Prasanna Kumar vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. , [MANU/TL/0183/2022 IN Crl.P.No.2173 of 2016], wherein, at para