IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14678 of 2024 DATED: 05^th JANUARY, 2026 Between Srinivas Saream …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana represented by the Public Prosecutor and one another …Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.708 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (for short ‘the learned trial Court’). The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized in New Zealand on 06.11.2015, without the consent of elders from either side. Thereafter, they settled in the United States of America and were blessed with a male child. It is alleged that, subsequently, the petitioner-accused No.1, along with the accused Nos.2 to 5, subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty by making unlawful demands for dowry. The accused No.1 is stated to have harassed the respondent No.2 and frequently picked quarrels with her. Owing to such alleged harassment, the respondent No.2 instituted divorce proceedings in the United States of America. In December, 2022, she came to India and lodged the present complaint. Aggrieved by the alleged acts of cruelty and dowry demand, the respondent No.2 filed the present complaint alleging the commission of offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is innocent of the alleged offences. It is contended that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.1 were married in New Zealand and thereafter moved to the United States of America. It is further submitted that there are no specific or particularized allegations attributed to the petitioner-accused No.1. Learned counsel further contended that a decree of divorce was passed by a Court in the United States of America on 28.02.2023. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 never returned to India and that her statement was recorded only through video conferencing and that no incident of harassment is alleged to have been committed within India so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the learned trial Court. It is therefore contended that, in the absence of any sanction from the Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecution of the petitioner-accused No.1 is impermissible. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court, by order dated 28.08.2025 passed in CRL.P.No.14083 of 2024, has already quashed the proceedings against the accused Nos.2 to 5. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1.

05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial before the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition.

06. From a perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 were in love with each other, married in New Zealand, and thereafter moved to the United States of America. They lived together as husband and wife for some time and were blessed with a son. Subsequently, certain disputes arose between the couple. Apparently, the respondent No.2 instituted divorce proceedings a