Judgment : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the 1st accused in C.C.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri, Prakasham District. 2. I have heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner herein and the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State. 3. No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant though several adjournments were granted. 4. Brief facts relevant for considering the criminal petition are that according to the petitioner, he is the accused No.1 in Crime No.111 of 2009 on the file of Kanigiri police station, Prakasham District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The marriage of the petitioner with the de facto complainant was performed in the year 2000. After marriage, the petitioner had put up family in London as he was working in London by the time of marriage. Later, in the year 2003, a daughter was borne, and in the year 2004, a son was borne. Subsequently, there arose some misunderstandings between the petitioner and the de facto complainant (R-2) and they were constrained to live separately as per the orders of the Court. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant made a complaint to the police against the petitioner in writing and the police after conducting investigation, closed the file on 16-03-2005 as undetected crime. Later, the petitioner filed divorce case and the Croydon Country Court granted divorce on 01-08-2006 dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and the orders passed by the said Court have become final. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant subsequently came to India in the year 2005 itself with prior permission of the Court and did not go back to London. She also filed maintenance case and some protection petition before the Court in London and the same were dismissed. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no relationship between him and the de facto complainant since 2005 onwards. It is further submitted that on 03-05-2009, the petitioner came to his native place, and at that time, the de facto complainant made a complaint in Kanigiri police station on 06-05-2009. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no relationship between him and the de facto complainant since 2005 onwards. It is further submitted that on 03-05-2009, the petitioner came to his native place, and at that time, the de facto complainant made a complaint in Kanigiri police station on 06-05-2009. Basing on the complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Police arrested the petitioner on 07-05-2009 and subsequently he was released on bail by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri, with certain conditions. 5. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Kanigiri police have no jurisdiction to entertain the crime as no part of offence and no cause of action arose in their limits. According to him, even as per the de facto complainant the alleged harassment took place in London, in respect of which, she had already made a complaint to the police, London, and they after conducting investigation, closed the file as undetected crime. The learned senior counsel would further submit that Croydon Country Court granted divorce and the de facto complainant already left U.K. in 2005 itself and there is no relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. Submitting as above, the learned senior counsel sought to quash C.C.No.73 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that even according to the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant to the police, the entire incident took place in London. She is a resident of Chennai and has been residing there since 2005 after coming over to Chennai from London. The petitioner also filed a copy of a decree of divorce granted by the Croydon Country Court. Thus, on the date of the alleged incident, the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was dissolved by a decree of competent Court which is binding on both the parties. 7. The learned senior counsel relied on a decision reported in Pashaura Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 922), wherein the Supreme Court held in paras 9 to 11 as follows: “9. 7. The learned senior counsel relied on a decision reported in Pashaura Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 922), wherein the Supreme Court held in paras 9 to 11 as follows: “9. Insofar as offence under Section 498-A is concerned, the High Court in its earlier order dated April 29, 2004 in the petition filed by the family members, observed thus: “I have perused the First Information Report registered against the petitioners. The only allegation against the petitioner is that they started harassing Kamaljeet Kaur Gill for not bringing more dowry. No demand of dowry has been made by the petitioners, nor is there any specific entrustment, as alleged in the First Information Report of dowry articles to the petitioners. Parties have divorced each other, as per the order of the Supreme Court o British Columbia (Annexure P-1). Order is dated February 25, 2001. It is after this divorce that Pishora Singh got married in India on January 2, 2002.” 10. Moreover, in the affidavit of Kamaljeet Kaur referred to hereinabove, there is not a word about demand of dowry or harassment on account of dowry by the appellant. 11. We have no hesitation in holding that the first information report lodged by Balwant Singh is manifestly attended with mala fides and actuated with ulterior motive. The prosecution of the appellant is not at all legitimate, rather it is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. The appellant has made out a case for quashing the first information report and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto.” 8. The learned senior counsel also relied upon a judgment reported in Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. Tr. Principal Secretary (III (2011) CCR 452 (SC)), wherein the Supreme Court, in para-6 of the Judgment, held as follows: “Learned counsel urged that Section 188 Cr.P.C. recognizes that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he would have to be dealt with as if such offence had been committed in any place within India at which he may be found. Learned counsel, however, laid stress on the proviso which indicates that no such offence could be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government [Emphasis Supplied]. Learned counsel, however, laid stress on the proviso which indicates that no such offence could be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government [Emphasis Supplied]. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of an offence committed outside India, the same could not be proceeded with without previous sanction of the Central Government and that, accordingly, even if any of the offences was allegedly committed inside India, trial in respect of the same could continue, but the trial in respect of the offences committed outside India could not be continued, without the previous sanction of the Central Government.” 9. In view of the fact that in the present case, the entire incident even according to the de facto complainant (R-2) took place in London, the offence being committed outside India, the trial in any Court in India cannot be proceeded with beyond cognizance stage without previous sanction of the Central Government. Further, in her report to the police, the de facto complainant suppressed the material facts viz., that there was a divorce of decree passed by the Croydon Country Court on the petition filed by the 1st accused (petitioner) dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, that she filed a criminal case and also a maintenance case against the petitioner in London and the police after investigation, closed the file as undetected crime insofar as the criminal case is concerned and that she was also refused maintenance. 10. In view of suppression of material facts as above stated, by the de facto complainant (R-2) and also as the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, Prakasham District, has no jurisdiction to try the offence against the petitioner without previous sanction of the Central Government, keeping proceedings on the file of the said Court any longer is nothing but abuses of process of law. Therefore, all the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri, Prakasham District, are quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.