THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2084 OF 2014

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 09.09.2014, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4907 of 2013 in C.C.No.44 of 2012 by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, whereby, the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking to discharge them from the main case, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 8 in C.C.No.44 of 2012 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During pendency of the proceedings, the present Crl.MP.No.4907 of 2013 was filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. praying to discharge the petitioners i.e., A1 to A8 from the said case. After hearing both the parties, the petition was dismissed vide impugned order, dated 09.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the case against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as the victim is alleged to have been harassed while she was staying at U.S.A., for which sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is very much required. But, the trial Court has mistakenly taken cognizance of the case against the petitioners herein vide C.C.No.44 of 2012. He further submitted that during pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present discharge petition before the trial Court and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order, dated 09.09.2014.

He, therefore, prayed to set aside the same.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when part of the offence has occurred in India, no such sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C is required and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the present petition with cogent reasons. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

6. Perused the record.

7. The contents of the complaint point out that the marriage of the daughter of the de facto complainant and petitioner No.1-accused No.1 took place on 29.04.2004 and immediately, from the second day of the marriage itself, petitioner No.1 along with other petitioners started abusing and beating the victim for not bringing sufficient dowry and immovable properties and that they have also continuously harassed the victim and suspected her character. It is also alleged that the petitioners have demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is further alleged that subsequent thereto, the victim along with petitioner No.1 went to U.S.A. and the harassment is alleged to have been continued even at U.S.A. also. The statements recorded by the police also point out the said allegations. It is also made out from the record that prior to marriage also, the petitioners herein induced the de facto complainant and the victim to marry the victim and harassed them and subjected them to mental and physical cruelty. In such circumstances, sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not required.

8. For convenience and clarity, Section 188 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

“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,