( 1 ) INITIALLY, petitioners (Al to A4) moved this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in cr. No. 27 of 2005 on the file of Iragavaram police station registered for the offence under Section 498a I. PC. During the pendency of the proceedings, police after due Investigation laid the charge sheet for the said offence before the II Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, who registered the same in C-C. No. 54 of 2006 and issued process. In view of laying the charge sheet, Crl. M. P,no. 2534 of 2006 was filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 54 of 2006 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial - First Class magistrate, Tanuku by suitably amending the original petition i. e. Crl. P. No. 2099 of 2005, which has been allowed and heard the counsel on both sides. The facts which give rise to file this petition are as under; ( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner (Al), is the husband of the 2nd respondent; whereas the 3rd petitioner (A3) is the husband of the 2nd petitioner (A2), who are residents of U. S. A. and 4th petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the 1st petitioner was performed with the 2nd respondent on 20-02-2003. Both of them are residents of k. Illindalaparru village and after the marriage both of them lived in Hyderabad for some time, thereafter, left to USA in december, 2004. While so, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the police alleging that before marriage A1 induced her parents that he has been doing job at London and at the time of marriage her parents gave 2 lakhs towards dowry and also Rs. 1 lakhs towards Adabaduchulanchanams and agreed to give 10 acres of mango garden situated at borrampalem. After the marriage, she came to know that Al did not have any job at London and when they were residing at hyderabad, A4 instigated Al to demand for register of palm oil garden in stead of Mango garden and used to demand for additional dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs. After the marriage, she came to know that Al did not have any job at London and when they were residing at hyderabad, A4 instigated Al to demand for register of palm oil garden in stead of Mango garden and used to demand for additional dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs. On A1 getting visa to USA, he took the complainant along with him and they resided in the house of A2 and A3, where accused 1 to 3 harassed the complainant for registering the palm oil garden in the name of al instead of Mango garden anal used to abuse her in filthy language and ill-treated all the while and finally necked her from the house of A2 and A3, in the result sent to India. Complainant informed the same to her father; and she also informed the weak position of her father to the accused. Al to a3 beat her and on 03-03-2005 A3 called the father of the complainant (L. W. I) and informed that Al will send the divorce notice to her. In view of the same, she lodged the above complaint which was registered as Cr. Mo. 27 of 2005 and police after due investigation laid the charge sheet. ( 3 ) SRI T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that according to the complainant, harassment for dowry, if any, took place at USA as per the complaint allegations. Therefore, the police in India cannot Investigate into the said crime. The entire harassment is at the house of A2 and A3 and cause of action for initiation of the crime arose at USA but not within the territorial jurisdiction of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, tanuku, therefore, it will not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the matter in C. C. No. 54 of 2005 and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y. ABRAHAM AJITH v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AIR 2004 SC 2475 He further submitted that without there being any sanction from the Central Government police cannot investigate nor can lay the charge sheet as per proviso to Section 188 Cr. P. C. For the said proposition he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in SYED ASGAR v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2005 Crl. L. J 3399. P. C. For the said proposition he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in SYED ASGAR v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2005 Crl. L. J 3399. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant would contend that the marriage which has taken place at K. iiiindalaparru; A1 and the complainant are residents of same village, they lived for some time at Hyderabad and thereafter left to USA. The demand of transfer of 10 acres palm oil garden in stead of Mango garden was initially made at Hyderabad and the same is continued at usa. The said demand was also made through telephone from usa to her father where she was residing. Therefore, the Court at Tanuku will have jurisdiction to try the said offence. In support of the above submissions he placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. MOBARIK ALI AHMED v. STATE OF BOMBAY, AIR 1957 SC 857 2. M. SRIDHAR REDDY v. STATE OF A. P. , 1996 (3) ALD 760 (DB)3. STATE OF M. P. v. SURESH KAUSHAL, (2003) 11 SCC 126 4. RAMESH VENKAT PERUMAL v. STATE OF A. P. , 1998 (l) ALD (Crl.) 122 (AP) Since the offence which has taken place in India continued at usa also, it is a continuing offence, and the courts at Tanuku will have jurisdiction to try the offence. 3. In view of the above submissions, the short question that arises for consideration in this criminal petition is; "whether the courts at Tanuku will have jurisdiction to receive the charge sheet and proceed with the matter". The compliant allegations dearly disclose that both al and complainant are residents of Illindalaparru, whose marriage was performed a. t the said place and at the time of marriage 2 lakhs was given towards dowry apart from 1 lakhs towards Adabaduchulanchanams; the parents of the complainant agreed to transfer 10 acres of Mango garden in favour of complainant; both of them lived at Hyderabad and from there they left to USA and were residing in the house of a2 and A3, since Al could not secure the job. At that time harassment alleged to have taken place and she was sent back to India; and when she was in her parents house, telephone call was received from A3 demanding transfer of palm oil garden in favour of Al and also for additional dowry, failure to do so Al will give divorce to the complainant. Before adverting to the submissions, it is appropriate to notice Section 3 IPC which reads as follows: "any person liable by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act: had been committed within India". ( 4 ) SECTION 4 IPC provides extension of Code to extra territorial offences, which reads thus: "the provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by (1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Explanation:- In this Section the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this code". ( 5 ) SECTION 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for dealing with the offence which is committed outside India which reads as follows: when an offence is committted outside India (a) by a citizen of India, whethen 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, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in india except with the previous sanction of the central Government. ( 6 ) IN Y. ABRAHAM AJITH (1 supra) the Supreme court considered the word "cause of action" as used in Sections 177 and 178 Cr. ( 6 ) IN Y. ABRAHAM AJITH (1 supra) the Supreme court considered the word "cause of action" as used in Sections 177 and 178 Cr. P. C wherein a compliant was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 498a and 406 IPC and held that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai, and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no Jurisdiction to deal with the matter with a direction to return the complaint to the complainant who, if so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. This Court in the case of SYED ASGAR (2 supra)quashed registration of crime; wherein petitioner was an employee of one Baharoon Development Corporation situated at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; when he came to India compliant was lodged against him by an authorized representative of that company for the offences punishable under Sections 120b, 468, 471, 408, 420 r/w 109 IPC before the Inspector Police, central Crime Station, Hyderabad. This Court upheld the contention that previous sanction of the Central Government as per proviso to Section 188 Cr. P. C, is essential and heid that the police were informed by the consulate Central of India, Jeddah, saudi Arabia, that some funds were withdrawn by the petitioner by forging the signatures and without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 188 Cr. P. C. and in the absence of any written compliant by Baharoon development Corporation, police in India cannot register the crime and accordingly quashed the same. ( 7 ) THE same are misplaced to the facts of the present case.-In MOBARIK ALT. AHMED v. STATE OF bombay (3 supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the appellant who was convicted before the sessions Court for the offence under Section 420 IPC was residing at Karachi made representations to the complainant through letters, telegrams and telephone talks, sometimes directly to the complainant and sometimes through a commission agent and in that process, a contract was brought about for purchase, by the complainant from the appellant, of 1,200 tones of rice at the rate of 51 pounds per ton to be shipped from Karachi to Gca. Since there was default in supply of rice, the appellant was convicted by the Presidency magistrate for the offence of cheating under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code on three counts of cheating viz. the first relating to a sum of Rs. 81,000/-, the second relating to a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- and the third relating to a sum of rs. 2,36,900/-and was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the first count, to twenty-two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, on the second count, and two months rigorous imprisonment on the third count against four persons including the appellant and the case was separated against the appellant and accordingly he was convicted for the offence under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC by the Bombay High court, On further appeal, the Supreme Court in para-23 of its judgment held as under: "the volume of evidence set out and the facts found to be true In the above case show that the appellant through at Karachi was making representations to the complainant through letters, telegrams and telephone talks, some times directly to the complainant and some times through Jasawalla, that he had ready stock of rice, that he had reserved shipping space and that on receipt of money he would be in a position to ship the rice forthwith. These representations were made to the complainant at bombay, notwithstanding that the appellant was making the representations from Karachi. The position is quite clear where the representations were made through the trunk phone. The statement of the appellant at the Karachi-end of the telephone becomes a representation to the complainant only when it reaches cognition of the complainant at the Bombay-end. This indeed has not been disputed. It makes no difference in principle if the representations have in some stages been conveyed by telegrams or by letters to the complainant directly or to some one of the appellants agents, including Jasawalla in that category. There is also no question that it is as a result of these representations that the appellant parted with his money to the tune of about rs,5 lakhs on three different dates. There is also no question that it is as a result of these representations that the appellant parted with his money to the tune of about rs,5 lakhs on three different dates. It has been found that the representations were made without being supported by the requisite facts and that this was so to the knowledge of the appellant and that the representations were so made with an initial dishonest intention. On these facts it is clear that all the ingredients necessary for finding the offence ccf cheating under Section 420 read with Section 415 have occurred at bombay. In that sense the entire offence was committed at Bombay and not merely the consequence viz. delivery of money which was one of the ingredients of the offence. Learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously contested this position. But he urges that even so the appellant who was not corporeally present in india at the relevant time does not fall within the purview of the Indian Fenal Code. Now there can be no doubt that prima facie the Indian Penal code is intended to deal with all unlawful acts and omissions defined to be offences and committed within India and to provide for the punishment thereof of the person or persons found guilty therefor. This is implicit in the preamble and Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code. What is, therefore, to be seen is whether there is any reason to think that a foreigner not corporeally present at the time of the commission of the offence does not fall within the range of persons punishable therefor under the Code. It appears to us that the answer must be in the negative unless then is any recognised legal principle on which such exclusion can be founded or the language of the Code compels such a construction". It appears to us that the answer must be in the negative unless then is any recognised legal principle on which such exclusion can be founded or the language of the Code compels such a construction". ( 8 ) IN M. SRIDHAR REDDY v. STATE OF A. P. (4 supra) this court in dealing with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court in case of dowry death held as under: "we have made a cursory survey of the relevant provisions which, In our opinion, provide the idea whether Madanapatle Police Station has rightly entertained the complaint of the father of the victim girl and we have no hesitation in concluding that in case of a dowry death and particularly when there are clear allegations by the father of the victim girl that petitionera demanded monies by way of dowry and raceived the same in part at Madanapalle and through his victim daughter conveyed further demands to him to Madanapalie, Madanapalle Police committed no error of Jurisdiction when It entertained the complainant and registered the crime for investigation. It is a clear case In which alt transactions pertaining to demand of dowry and payment thereof have taken place at madanapalte and since the father of the victim girl has not been able, as alleged, to meet the demand. The victim has allegedly suffered the torture at the hands of the petitioner-appellants in Jalgaon in the State of Maharashtra and met the ultimate death at the said place. The jurisdiction to Investigate, thus, In terms of section 156 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being coextensive with the jurisdiction of the court to Inquire Into or try the case as contemplated under Section 179 of the Cr. P. C. , cannot be denied to Madanapalle police, In any case, since there are allegations that the victim had informed her lather (Informant) who was at madanapalle of the demands by telecommunication there is no warrant for any objection by the petitioners-appellants to question the jurisdiction of the Madanapalle police. . . . " ( 9 ) IN STATE OF M. P. v. SURESH KAUSHAL (5 supra) the Supreme Court after considering the implication of Section 179 Cr. P. C. held as under: "the above section contemplates two courts having jurisdiction and t:he trial is permitted to take place in any one of those two courts. . . . " ( 9 ) IN STATE OF M. P. v. SURESH KAUSHAL (5 supra) the Supreme Court after considering the implication of Section 179 Cr. P. C. held as under: "the above section contemplates two courts having jurisdiction and t:he trial is permitted to take place in any one of those two courts. One is the court within whose local jurisdiction the act has been done and the other is the court within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has ensued. When the allegation is that the miscarriage took place at Jabalpur it cannot be contended that the court at Jabalpur could not have acquired jurisdiction as the acts alleged against the accused took place at Indore". ( 10 ) THIS Court in RAMESH VENKAT PERUMAL v. STATE OF A. P. (6 supra) after considering Section 188 cr. P. C. in a complaint filed by wife against the husband under section 498a IPC held as under: "therefore, it is manifest from the above averments and other material on record, the petitioners parents demanded dowry at the time of marriage and she was subjected to humiliation and harassment wher she stayed at Tirupathi and Madras and she also parted with her jewellery at the behest of her mother-in-law with the insistence of her husband and on reaching u. S. A. , the harassment continued and she was not even allowed to speak to her parents on phone and she was made to work like a maidservant and when she resisted she was made to run around the tennis Court late In the night as a measure of punishment. It Is further alleged insisted for termination of pregnancy and when she refused she was dropped at Dallas Air Port penniless and she contacted her aunt and flew back to Hyderabad and thereafter on account of mental agony she suffered miscarriage; and the doctor who attended on her at the time of miscarriage opined that the miscarriage was due to mental tension and agony. Thus she suffered miscarriage at Hyderabad in consequence of physical and mental agony meted out to her by the petitioner while she was staying at U. S. A. Subsequently, the petitioner insisted to comply with the request of his father to transfer the house standing in the name of her father, as a condition precedent to join him and thus the allegations fully establish the mental harassment continued even after she returned back to India and stayed at Hyderabad with her parents. If a married woman is forced to stay at her parents house in order to meet the illegal demands of her husband or relatives of her hand, naturally she suffers mental agony even during her stay at her parents house and hence, it is continuing offence and continues during her stay at her parents house. . . . " ( 11 ) FURTHER, in para7 held as under: "as already held, the offence under Section 498a of IPC is a continuing offence and the mental harassment has continued during the stay with her parents at Hyderabad. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction of the central Government, as contemplated under section 188 of the code, is required to prosecute the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is not a condition precedent to initiate criminal proceedings and the same: can be obtained, if need be, during trial of the case and hence, it cannot be said that the proceedings are liable to be quashed on that ground" Recently the Supreme Court in OM HEMRAJANI v. STATE OF U. P. , (2005)1 SCC 617 after considering the provisions of Chapter xiii of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials held as under: ". . . . By legal fiction, Section 188 which deals with offence committed outside India, makes the place at which the offender may be found, to be a place of commission of offence. Section 188 proceeds on the basis that 3 fugitive from justice may be found anywhere in India. The finding of the accused has to be by the court where the accused appears. From the plain and clear language of the section, it: is evident that the finding of the accused cannot be by the complainant or the police. Section 188 proceeds on the basis that 3 fugitive from justice may be found anywhere in India. The finding of the accused has to be by the court where the accused appears. From the plain and clear language of the section, it: is evident that the finding of the accused cannot be by the complainant or the police. Further, it is not expected that a victim of an offence which was committed outside India should come to India and first try to ascertain where the accused is or may be and then approach that court. The convenience of such a victim is of importance. That has been kept in view by Section 188 of the code. A victim may come to India and approach any court convenient to him and file complaint in respect of offence commit:ted abroad by an indian, The convenience of a person who is hiding after committing offence abroad and is a fugitive from justice is not relevant, It is in this context, the expression In question has to be interpreted. Section 188 has been the subject-matter of Interpretation for about 150 years-Further, the Supreme Court approved the ratio laid down in sahebrao BAJIRAO v. SLURYABHAN ZIBLAJI, AIR 1948 Nag 251 wherein it was held that the word "found" in Section 188 means found by the court at the time when the matter comes up for trial, that is to say, any court which is otherwise competent to try the offence can take seisin the moment the accused appears in its presence, How the accused gets there is Immaterial. It does not matter whether he comes voluntarily or in answer to summons or under Illegal arrest. It Is enough that the court should find him present when it comes to take up the matter. ( 12 ) IN AJAY AGGARWAL V. UNION OF INDIA, (1993) 3 SCC 609 justice K. Ramaswamy in his separate judgment held that sanction under Section 188 Cr,p. C, is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence. If need be it could be obtained before trial begins. Justice R. M. Sahai while concurring with the above view held that substantive law of extra-territory in respect of criminal offences is provided for by Section 4 of the 1pc and the procedure to inquire and try it is contained in Section 188 Cr. If need be it could be obtained before trial begins. Justice R. M. Sahai while concurring with the above view held that substantive law of extra-territory in respect of criminal offences is provided for by Section 4 of the 1pc and the procedure to inquire and try it is contained in Section 188 Cr. P. C. Effect of these sections is that an offence committed by an Indian citizen outside the country is deemed to have been committed in India. Proviso to Section 188 Cr. P. C. however provides the safeguard for the nri to guard against any unwarranted harassment by directing, "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. Since the proviso begins with a non obstante clause its observance is mandatory. But it would come into play only if the principal clause is applicable, namely, it is established that an offence as defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Cr. P. C. has been committed and it has been committed outside the country, once the complaint allegations do disclose that A1 is also the resident of Illindalaparru, his marriage was performed there, threats and demand for additional dowry made through telephone were received at the said place, courts at Tanuku will have jurisdiction to try the offence. In view of the same, the submission of the learned senior counsel that the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku will not have jurisdiction to try the offence is a fallacy and the same is accordingly rejected and it is held that the Judicial First Class magistrate, Tanuku will have jurisdiction to receive the which has taken place within the jurisdiction of Tanuku by virtue of legal fiction, I see no force in the further contention of the learned senior counsel that unless the prior sanction is obtained from the Central Government as contemplated under proviso to Section 188 Cr. P. C. courts cannot proceed further in the matter, further, the complaint allegations clearly disclose that A1 and the complainant resided in the house of A2 and a3, which is admittedly not matrimonial house of the complainant nor A2 and A3 are under obligation to keep Al and the complainant in their house. P. C. courts cannot proceed further in the matter, further, the complaint allegations clearly disclose that A1 and the complainant resided in the house of A2 and a3, which is admittedly not matrimonial house of the complainant nor A2 and A3 are under obligation to keep Al and the complainant in their house. Therefore, though A2 and a3 necked out the complainant from their house, they cannot be proceeded for the offence punishable under Section 498a ipc. Since there is no other allegation against A2 and A3, proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed while continuing as against al and A4. Criminal Petition is partly allowed, as indicated above.