THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12400 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.281 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Khammam.

2. Heard Mr.U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4 were quashed on earlier occasion vide order dated 17.07.2025 in Crl.P.No.6048 of 2025. The petitioner herein is accused No.1, who is the son-in-law of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the alleged incident occurred in the USA while the petitioner and LW2, who is the wife of accused No.1, were residing together. In such a case, sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is necessary to initiate proceedings against the petitioner herein. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision of this Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 9 SCC 527, wherein at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 it is held as follows:

"14. The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows:-

"29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one -- commission of an offence; second -- by an Indian citizen; and third -- that it should have been committed outside the country."

15. Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of Section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central government would be required before the trial could commence.”

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected the petition submitting that when the grounds now raised by the petitioner were available at the time of filing the earlier petition in Crl.P.No.6048 of 2025, the failure to raise such grounds at that stage, and the attempt to raise them in the present petition, is not permissible, as envisaged in the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 737

6. Perused the record.

7. The record reveals that the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4 were quashed vide order in Crl.P.No. 6048 of 2025. It is noted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners therein. The ground now raised by the learned counsel for