ORDER : Juvvadi Sridevi, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.5070 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short ‘the learned trial Court’). The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record. 3(a). The brief facts of the case are that basing on the complaint made by the respondent No.2, who is the father of wife of the petitioner-accused No.1, a case was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Act vide Crime No.730 of 2021, dated 25.09.2021 and consequently a charge sheet, dated 22.09.2023 was filed which was taken cognizance and was numbered as C.C.No.5070 of 2022 on the file of the learned trial Court. 3(b). The contents of the charge sheet would disclose that the marriage of the petitioner-accused No.1 and the daughter of the respondent No.2 solemnized on 21.04.2016 at Naren Gardens, Miyapur and at the time of marriage Rs.1.50 crores of cash and 156 tulas of gold was given as dowry. After marriage, the daughter of the respondent No.2 went to Washington D.C. along with the petitioner-accused No.1 and after some days, the petitioner-accused No.1 started harassing her both mentally and physically and treating like a slave. It is further alleged that the petitioner- accused No.1 used to forward all the phone recordings to the accused No.3, who in turn instigated the petitioner-accused No.1 to harass her. Thereafter, she got pregnant and the petitioner-accused No.1 insisted for abortion. On 25.07.2019, she gave birth to a baby girl and on 17.11.2019 she returned to India along with the baby and the accused No.1 never bothered to see her. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 misappropriated the entire dowry amount and also harassed her for additional dowry. 4(a). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner- accused No.1 is innocent of the alleged offences. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 misappropriated the entire dowry amount and also harassed her for additional dowry. 4(a). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner- accused No.1 is innocent of the alleged offences. The daughter of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.1 moved to United States of America on 07.05.2016 and later, when she came to India to write GRE-Toefl exam, she stayed at her parent’s house. It is further contended that even statement of LW-6 i.e., the daughter of respondent No.2 was recorded through WhatsApp call and that the accused No.1 and LW-6 were residing in United Sates of America and only respondent No.2 is pursuing the present case. 4(b). It is further contended that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 are only hear-say and he had no personal knowledge about the incidents. Furthermore, at the time of marriage of the brother of the petitioner-accused No.1, which took place on 15.06.2019, the respondent No.2 and his family members also attended the marriage and reception, which was held on 17.06.2019. The said fact establishes that there were no ill feelings between the two families. It is further contended that if at all there were any issues, they would not have attended and participated in the functions and the daughter of the respondent No.2 did not attend the functions as she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. 4(c). It is further contended that the petitioner-accused No.1 filed a petition for divorce before the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland and the said Court vide order, dated 03.01.2023 granted absolute divorce and permanent custody of minor child was given to the daughter of the respondent No.2. Further, the petitioner-accused No.1 was directed to pay $1488 per month towards child support for the minor child. It is also contended that considering the well-being of the mother and child, the petitioner-accused No.1 did not insist for the custody of minor child and agreed only for visitation rights. But the respondent No.2 on behalf of his daughter filed F.C.O.P.No.1734 of 2022 on 26.09.2022 before the learned Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and in view of the Divorce Order passed by the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland, the said FCOP does not survive. But the respondent No.2 on behalf of his daughter filed F.C.O.P.No.1734 of 2022 on 26.09.2022 before the learned Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and in view of the Divorce Order passed by the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland, the said FCOP does not survive. Furthermore, one Mani Malladi, an Astrologer by profession was also falsely implicated as the accused No.5 by the respondent No.2, but the police during investigation, deleted his name. This itself shows the attitude of the respondent No.2 in implicating the innocent people in criminal case out of their personal vendetta. 4(d). It is further contended that as far as the allegation of misappropriation of jewellery is concerned, the police did not get any evidence during investigation as to entrustment of the jewellery and therefore the essential ingredients of Section 406 of I.P.C. are not attracted. It is further submitted that as per the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner- accused No.1 never returned to India or committed any harassment in India to constitute an offence within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and to prosecute the petitioner-accused No.1 there should be Sanction from the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. This Court vide Order dated 16.10.2023 passed in CRL.P.No.6550 of 2023 quashed the proceedings against the accused Nos.2 and 4 and vide Order dated 05.11.2024 passed in CRL.P.No.9463 of 2023 quashed the proceedings against the accused No.3. 4(e). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.1, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gaba and others Vs. 4(e). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.1, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2023) 3 SCC 423 held as under: “For Section 406 of the IPC to get attracted, there must be criminal breach of trust in terms of Section 405 of the IPC.9 For Section 405 of the IPC to be attracted, the following have to be established: (a) the accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property; (b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and (c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.” 4(f). Further, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 162 , wherein at paragraph Nos. 12, 18, 19, and 22 it was held that: “12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was almed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in- laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an Increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false Implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, L.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, l.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” 4(g). It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” 4(g). Further, relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v State of A.P., (2011) 9 SCC 527 wherein it was held that: “15. Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal’s case (supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central government would be required before the trial could commence. 16. Accordingly, upto 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. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor in one tone submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder: “188. 6. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is extracted 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.” 7. As per the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner-accused No.1 and the victim are legally married and have moved to United States of America. They led happy marital life for some time. Thereafter, some disputes arose between the couple, and the petitioner-accused No.1 filed a petition for divorce before the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland and the said Court vide Order dated 03.01.2023 granted absolute divorce and permanent custody of minor child was given to the daughter of the respondent No.2. Further, the petitioner-accused No.1 was directed to pay $1488 per month towards child support for the minor child. The respondent No.2 on behalf of her daughter filed F.C.O.P.No.1734 of 2022 on 26.09.2022 before the learned Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. 8. On a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the complaint was lodged by the father of the respondent No.2 with respect to the incidents alleged to have occurred in the United States of America. The statement of his daughter was recorded by the Police through a WhatsApp call, and the entirety of the allegations pertains to incidents said to have happened in the United States of America. Although certain allegations of physical assault have been made, there is no medical record or statement of any competent medical practitioner to substantiate the same. It is to be noted that there were certain allegations of misappropriation of jewellery and demands of additional dowry. However, the charge sheet do not disclose the specific amount allegedly demanded towards additional dowry, or there are no details of the alleged manner of misappropriation of jewellary. 9. It is to be noted that there were certain allegations of misappropriation of jewellery and demands of additional dowry. However, the charge sheet do not disclose the specific amount allegedly demanded towards additional dowry, or there are no details of the alleged manner of misappropriation of jewellary. 9. A significant legal infirmity emerges from the procedural lapse concerning the very initiation of the prosecution. For prosecuting an Indian citizen for an offence alleged to have been committed outside India, the prosecuting agency is mandatorily required to obtain prior sanction from the Central Government as contemplated under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. A perusal of Section 188 makes it clear that the proviso expressly states: “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.” The statutory mandate therefore requires that sanction must first be accorded by the Central Government, and only thereafter can the case be inquired into or proceeded with. However, in the present case, no such sanction was obtained by the prosecuting agency. This omission is not a mere procedural irregularity but constitutes a jurisdictional defect that goes to the very root of the prosecution. 10. Further, in the present case, the entire alleged incidents took place in United States of America and the victim being the wife of the petitioner-accused No.1 is the right person to file the complaint, but no reason has been given in the complaint as to why the respondent No.2 (petitioner’s father-in-law) has filed the present complaint. Though the Court permits the parents to file the complaints, some reasons have to be assigned as to why the real victim has not lodged the complaint. It is evident from the record that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by an Order of the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland, which was ordered, adjudged and decreed in the presence and agreement of both the parties. Moreover, the respondent No.2 has no personal or direct knowledge about the incidents which took place between the petitioner and his wife, so as to adduce any evidence before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of the respondent No.2 will be treated as ‘hearsay evidence’, which is inadmissible in evidence. 11. Moreover, the respondent No.2 has no personal or direct knowledge about the incidents which took place between the petitioner and his wife, so as to adduce any evidence before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of the respondent No.2 will be treated as ‘hearsay evidence’, which is inadmissible in evidence. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of the mandatory sanction of the Central Government, coupled with the fact that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the daughter of the respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce in the presence and with the consent of both parties, and in light of the further fact that the respondent No.2 has no personal knowledge of the incidents alleged to have occurred in the United States of America, there are no grounds to proceed with the criminal trial against the petitioner-accused No.1. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.5070 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.