Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1021 (TS)

Bommaraju Krishna v. State of Telangana

2025-09-12

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1592 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short D.P. Act). 2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Jagan Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record. 3. Respondent No.2-de facto complainant, is the father of the victim/LW-6 namely Nagapuri @ Bommaraju Swetha, who is the wife of the petitioner-accused No.1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of petitioner was performed with victim on 04.12.2016. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given to the petitioner. After marriage, the couple resided at the house of de facto complainant for a week, during which the petitioner allegedly quarreled with the victim, expressing dissatisfaction over the dowry and demanded additional amounts. The de facto complainant pacified the matter and sent the victim to her matrimonial home, where they lived amicably for about two months. Subsequently, the victim moved to Australia for her higher studies and the petitioner to went to Pune for his job. The de facto complainant has given amounts to the petitioner for his visa. Later, the petitioner joined the victim in Australia, where he allegedly subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, accusing her of infidelity, and also demanded additional dowry. Upon being informed by the victim, the de facto complainant approached the petitioner’s parents. Instead of admonishing the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner allegedly supported the demands of the petitioner and abused the de facto complainant. While so, the victim was blessed with a son. After the birth of their son, on the fifth day of delivery, the petitioner, instigated by his family, abused and assaulted the victim, reiterating his dowry demands, and thereafter left her and the child in Australia and returned to India. A panchayat was held in the presence of elders, during which the accused persons allegedly abused the de facto complainant and others in filthy language. A panchayat was held in the presence of elders, during which the accused persons allegedly abused the de facto complainant and others in filthy language. When requested to sign on the documents for the child's visa, the petitioner refused to do so, unless the demand of additional dowry was fulfilled. Subsequently, the petitioner and other accused in the crime sent a divorce notice to the victim, stating it would be withdrawn only upon receipt of additional dowry. As the victim remained in Australia, her father, the de facto complainant, has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner and others, for the said acts of cruelty, harassment, and illegal dowry demands. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1. The petitioner has always acted responsibly towards his wife and child. He never harassed the victim either physically or mentally, nor did he ever demand any additional dowry from her or her family. The further allegation that the petitioner abandoned the victim and their minor son in Australia is denied. In fact, during the period of demonetization, when there was an acute shortage of cash, amounts were transferred by the petitioner to the account of the de facto complainant. These amounts were subsequently returned by the de facto complainant to the petitioner’s account. Taking undue advantage of the said transaction, the de facto complainant has foisted the present complaint against the petitioner with all false allegations only to harass and blackmail him. 4.2. From the very beginning of the marriage, the victim acted indifferently towards the family members of the petitioner and she resided only for a few days at the matrimonial home before leaving to Australia to pursue her higher studies. At her request, the petitioner left his job in India and went to Australia at his own expense. During their stay, the victim was mistreated by the petitioner, humiliating him before his friends, denying his entry into the house, escalating minor disputes into serious conflicts and also physically assaulted him. The victim used to take the salary of the petitioner. When the victim became pregnant, her parents joined her and altogether subjected the petitioner to ill-treatment and physical assault, resulting in bleeding injuries. Despite this, the petitioner bore all the expenses related to the birth of their son on 17.01.2019. The victim used to take the salary of the petitioner. When the victim became pregnant, her parents joined her and altogether subjected the petitioner to ill-treatment and physical assault, resulting in bleeding injuries. Despite this, the petitioner bore all the expenses related to the birth of their son on 17.01.2019. Feeling distressed, he thought of ending his life in Australia, but upon the advice of his parents and well-wishers, he returned to India on 10.02.2019. After coming down to India, the petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2019 seeking divorce from the victim. Subsequently, after about one year, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant against the petitioner and his family members. 4.3. All the allegations made against the petitioner have taken place in Australia, where the husband and wife lived and therefore, the prosecution ought to have obtained mandatory sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. from the Central Government. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another , (2011) 9 SCC 527 . 4.4. In the instant case, the matter is coming up for cross- examination of PW1 in the trial Court, however, no sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. was obtained by the Police. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant admitted that all the incidents have happened in Australia. However, there was one incident of demand for additional dowry in India, when the victim and petitioner visited the house of de facto complainant immediately after their marriage. Even if one incident has happened in India, there is no requirement of obtaining sanction of the Central Government to proceed with the trial. The victim or her parents never harassed or beat the petitioner. The petitioner has created a fictitious story to gain sympathy by false twisting the facts. He further submits that the petitioner declined to sign the visa documents of their son, thereby failing to fulfill his legal obligations and consequently depriving the child of permanent citizenship. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against him can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against him can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended on the similar lines of learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. 7. For proper adjudication of the matter, Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder: “ 188. Offence committed outside India:- When an offence is committed outside India:- (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or (b) by any person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences 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.” 8. Admittedly, all the incidents narrated in the complaint have taken place in Australia, except for one instance which allegedly happened in India. Thus, it has to be examined as to whether the provisions of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. would apply in this case. 9. The only incident alleged to have occurred in India, as per the complaint, is that after the marriage, the petitioner and victim resided at the house of the de facto complainant for about a week, during which period, the petitioner is alleged to have engaged in a quarrel with the victim, expressing dissatisfaction with the dowry provided and demanded additional amounts. Except the aforesaid vague allegation, there is no specific instance or overt act of cruelty, harassment, or unlawful demand alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while in India. It is admitted in the complaint itself that after the said incident, the de facto complainant has pacified the issue, and the victim subsequently joined the petitioner at her matrimonial home, where they amicably lived together for about two months. The subsequent period of harmonious living between the petitioner and the victim significantly weakens the credibility of the prior vague allegation and does not support the case of cruelty or harassment within India. The subsequent period of harmonious living between the petitioner and the victim significantly weakens the credibility of the prior vague allegation and does not support the case of cruelty or harassment within India. Hence, the alleged incident which has occurred in India does not constitute a case against the petitioner for the offences alleged. 10. Crucially, the most significant legal infirmity lies in the procedural lapse concerning the prosecution itself. In Thota Venkateswarlu’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that up to the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. 11. A perusal of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. discloses that when an offence is committed outside India, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. 12. In the instant case, the matter is coming up for cross- examination of PW1. However, the prosecution has failed to obtain the mandatory sanction as required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. This omission is not a mere procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect that goes to the very root of the prosecution, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. Apart from the above, it is pertinent to note that the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2-de facto complainant, who is the father of the victim. The de facto complainant does not have personal knowledge of the alleged incidents which took place between the petitioner and his wife. As such, he is not a direct witness to the alleged acts and therefore is incapable of adducing evidence before the trial Court. Any statement or testimony given by the de facto complainant, in the absence of personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, would amount to hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible in law and cannot be relied upon as the basis for initiating criminal prosecution. 14. As seen from the complaint, it is evident that the marriage of victim was performed with the petitioner on 04.12.2016. The victim and petitioner left to Australia on 26.02.2017 and 03.12.2017 respectively. The petitioner returned to India on 10.02.2019. 14. As seen from the complaint, it is evident that the marriage of victim was performed with the petitioner on 04.12.2016. The victim and petitioner left to Australia on 26.02.2017 and 03.12.2017 respectively. The petitioner returned to India on 10.02.2019. However, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant against the petitioner and his family members on 08.12.2019 i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint. If really there was harassment from the very inception of the marriage, the victim ought to have lodged the complaint much earlier. The de facto complainant has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry meted out by the petitioner either in India or Australia, except stating that he has harassed the victim physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. 15. From any perspective, there are no prima facie grounds to proceed with the criminal trial against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot be subjected to the ordeal of trial, especially when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of dowry against him, combined with the prosecution’s failure to obtain the mandatory sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.1592 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda, are hereby quashed.