JUDGMENT R Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The marriage between the petitioner, who was working in the United States of America, and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 05.08.2001 in Vijayawada. Thereafter, the petitioner went to United States of America on 15.08.2001. The de facto complainant joined him in the United States of America on 23.08.2001. They lived together till April, 2002. When, the de facto complainant gave a complaint against the petitioner to the police authorities in the United States of America on 26.03.2002, the couple started living separately from 01.04.2002 and stayed separately in the United States of America till November, 2003. The de facto complainant had then returned to India and filed a complaint against seven (7) accused persons on 01.12.2003. The complaint was registered as Crime No.359 of 2003 of Suryaraopet L & O Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of investigation, accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 in the complaint were dropped and a charge sheet was filed against four (4) accused person for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This charge sheet was taken cognizance by the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and numbered as C.C.No.555 of 2005. Due to the absence of the petitioner herein, the case was split-up and the trial was completed against accused Nos.2 to 4, who were acquitted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. However, they were found guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 to 4 had filed Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. In the said appeal the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 was affirmed. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 to 4 had filed Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. In the said appeal the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 was affirmed. However, the sentence was modified to payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.3,000/- by each of the accused. The sentence relating to rigorous imprisonment was set aside. 3. The split up case against the petitioner herein was numbered as C.C.No.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the same is pending. 4. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. The charge sheet filed by the investigating officer states that in the course of negotiations of the alliance prior to the marriage no monetary terms were discussed. However, allegations were made that just prior to the marriage there was harassment on the part of the accused, due to which dowry was paid. The relevant part of the charge sheet reads as follows: "Even prior to the marriage A2 to A4 started harassing L.Ws.1 to 3 for getting money. In the first week of June 2001 A2 demanded and took an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the pretext of performing some puja in the third week of June, A3 called L.W.1 to her house in Ashok Nagar and A3 along with A2 demanded illegally and amount of Rs.3 lakhs and threatened her to give the amount within 2 days or face cancellation of the marriage due to pressure of A2 & A3, LW.1 gave Rs.3 lakhs which amounts to nothing but dowry. Again A2 demanded LW.3 Rs.2 lakhs in the second week of July, 2001 and as there is no other alternative LW.3 gave Rs.2 lakhs to A2. Again one week prior to engagement LW.3 Rs.2 lakhs as 'Adapaduchu Katnam' and this amount was paid by LW.3 in the presence of LW.5 and one G.Venkateswara Rao. Even just prior to the marriage all the accused demanded Rs.3 lakhs threatening to cancel the marriage. As there is no other alternative LWs.2 and 3 paid Rs.3 lakhs yielding to the illegal demands of the accused. Even just prior to the marriage all the accused demanded Rs.3 lakhs threatening to cancel the marriage. As there is no other alternative LWs.2 and 3 paid Rs.3 lakhs yielding to the illegal demands of the accused. All the above mentioned payments amount to dowry payment only and LWs.1 to 3 paid these amounts under duress. Even just prior to the consumption of marriage on 09.08.2001 A1 & A2 demanded unlawfully and took Rs.3 lakhs from LW.1". 6. The other allegations in the charge sheet relate to harassment by accused Nos.2 to 4 in relation to events in India. The allegations against the petitioner herein in the remaining part of the charge sheet relates to allegations of harassment in the United States of America. It is further stated in the charge sheet that as far as allegations relating to events in the United States of America are concerned, a complaint had been given to the New-York Police on 26.03.2002. 7. Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein would submit that there are no allegations against the petitioner in relation to Section 498-A of IPC for any of the events which took place in India. The allegations against the petitioner, in relation to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC are only allegations of the events, which are said to have taken place in the United States of America. He submits that Section 188 of Cr.P.C. bars any enquiry or trial for such alleged offence outside India, unless sanction of the Central Government is obtained. As no such sanction had been obtained, he submits that no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC. 8. As far as the allegations against the petitioner in relation to the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, learned Senior Counsel submits that these allegations are essentially against A2 to A4 and only general allegations are made against the petitioner, as A1. He submits that the said general allegations are made only for the purpose of making out a false case against the petitioner. In any event, the said allegations would not be sufficient to bring home the offences against the petitioner under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. He submits that the said general allegations are made only for the purpose of making out a false case against the petitioner. In any event, the said allegations would not be sufficient to bring home the offences against the petitioner under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would submit that the allegations in the charge sheet, as extracted above, gives a specific date and a specific allegation as to the demand made for dowry and the payment of dowry. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein. They further submit that in view of the specific allegations against the petitioner, the same cannot be quashed at this stage and would require a trial to be completed in the matter. 10. Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel would submit that the events against which the complaint has been filed are said to have taken place in the year 2001 and 2002 and more than 19 years have elapsed since then. He further submits that the de facto complainant has remarried and is living with her new family. He submits that continuation of the trial after such a prolonged period of time would be an abuse of the process of Court. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial was prolonged due to the absence of the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of his own conduct. 12. A perusal of the complaint shows that there is an allegation that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 09.08.2001. There is also an allegation that "all the accused" had demanded Rs.2 lakhs which was also paid. These are specific allegations made against the accused No.1/petitioner herein in the charge sheet. In the light of these allegations, it cannot be said that these are general and omnibus allegations. Further, the delay in conduct of the trial was on account of the absence of the petitioner, and as such, prolonged delay cannot be cited as a reason for quashing the case. 13. In the light of these allegations, it cannot be said that these are general and omnibus allegations. Further, the delay in conduct of the trial was on account of the absence of the petitioner, and as such, prolonged delay cannot be cited as a reason for quashing the case. 13. As far as, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the allegations in the charge sheet would not show any allegation against the petitioner for any action in India amounting to an offence under Sections 498-A of IPC or 406 of IPC. As no sanction has been obtained from the central Government, the petitioner cannot be subjected to a trial in relation to this offence. The provisions of section 406, which relate to criminal breach of trust, would also not arise as no allegations making out any such case is available in the charge sheet against the Petitioner. 14. In the result, this criminal petition is partly allowed by quashing the charge sheet in C.C.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada to the extent of the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. However, in view of the specific allegations in the charge sheet relating to the demand and obtaining of dowry, the same would require a trial and the petition to that extent is rejected. Accordingly, the trial in C.C.154 of 2009 in the Court of II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, shall continue only in relation to the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.