ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6669 of 2018 on the file of learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri A. Ananda Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. In spite of providing ample opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.2 is the mother, accused No.3 is the brother and accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of accused No.1 and that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. He further submitted that all the offences are alleged to have occurred at U.S.A. and that the allegations do not attract the ingredients under Section 498A I.P.C. He further submitted that even if the allegations are assumed to be true, since the entire allegations refer to the incidents that occurred at U.S.A., prior sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is necessary to launch the prosecution, in the absence of which, the proceedings are not maintainable against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioners. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Nalamolu Brahmaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 (1) ALT (Cri) 39.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations in the complaint point out that the de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed on 02.08.2012; that after marriage, the de facto complainant stayed at her marital home for two days and thereafter, on 12.08.2012, the de facto complainant and accused No.1 left to U.S.A; that accused No.1 is a person of different behavioural attitude; that they were blessed with a daughter in the year 2013; that accused No.1 did not come forward to meet the delivery expenditure; that the parents of the de facto complainant came to U.S.A. four days before her delivery and that accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with her with regard to salary and expenditure and beat her; that accused No.1 never spent a single pie for the family expenses and when the de facto complainant questioned the same, accused No.1 used to quarrel and beat her; that accused No.1 used to harass her to register the plot in his name; that petitioner Nos.2 and 3-accused Nos.3 and 4 reside in U.S.A and in October, 2013, the parents of accused No.1 came to U.S.A. and all of them used to instigate accused No.1 to harass the de facto complainant; that in December, 2013, accused No.1 beat the de facto complainant in the presence of his parents and used to pick up quarrel on petty issues and used to bear her; that accused No.1 used to send his entire money to his parents; that accused No.1 used to state that his first priority is his parents and brother; that accused No.1 used to harass the de facto complainant both physically and mentally with a demand to clear the debts of his parents; that the de facto complainant has taken loan to purchase properties and accused No.1 has not contributed anything for the same; that accused Nos.3 and 4 used to harass the de facto complainant to give money; that accused No.1 along with their daughter came to India on 27.03.2018; that the father-in-law of de facto complainant died on 05.04.2018 and she returned to India on 15.04.2018; that when she went to her marital home, it was locked and that when she telephoned to accused No.1, it was switched off.

Hence, the present complaint is filed.

7. Thus, a perusal of the complaint reveals that all the allegations refer to the incidents that occurred at U.S.A. while the de facto complainant was staying with accused No.1 at U.S.A. Therefore, prior sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is necessary to launch prosecution.

8. Section 188 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“188. Offence committed outside Ind