THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.505 of 2021 on the file of IV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC.

2. Heard Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint discloses that the offences alleged to have taken place at USA and thus, sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C., is essential and that without any sanction the prosecution has been launched, thus, the proceedings are vitiated and therefore, they have to be quashed against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. Nos.6110 and 6074 of 2022.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the transfer of amounts is into the account of the petitioner in India. Thus, there is no necessity to obtain sanction in these proceedings and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The recitals of charge sheet point out that the petitioner-

accused has deceitfully made wrongful gain out of the money received from one Ajay Taxak through LW.3-Bharat Reddy, which belongs to LW.1-de facto complainant and further he acted in a manner intimidating the de facto complainant. Therefore, they are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC. It is alleged that the de facto complainant authorized LW.3-Bharath Reddy and informed Ajay Taxak to handover the money in US dollars to LW.3. Thus, the petitioner herein, who is resident of India and claimed to be a Green Card Holder of USA, is alleged to have received the amount in US Dollars into his account and has not returned the same, thereby cheated the de facto complainant. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute the petitioner. Section 188 Cr.P.C., is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

Section 188 of Cr.P.C.:

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

1. by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere;

or

2. 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.”

7. Thus, even if a part of the offence is alleged to have occurred in India, sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not required. The recitals of the charge sheet point out the details of the statement of account and the extent of money that is being transferred into the account of the petitioner. Further, the prosecution has collected the bank statements. The bank official is also listed as a witness. Further LW.3 is listed as an eye witness. The veracity of these witnesses and the truth in the allegations can be culled out during the course of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of a coordinate of Bench of this Court in Crl.P. Nos.6110 and 6074 of 2022, in which offences are under Sections 498-A, 417, 406 and

506 IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it was that:

“that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section Cr.P.C. is required for proceeding with against the petitioners herein for the offences alleged in the complaint, on the basis of which the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered. As this Court is not satisfied that the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406, 506 IPC and Section