S.188 CrPC: Centre's Sanction Required To Try Offences Committed Outside India, Telangana High Court Quashes Dowry Case

The Telangana High Court has reiterated that when any offence involving an Indian citizen is committed outside of India, the trial should not be processed with, without the prior sanction of the Central Government. It thus quashed criminal proceedings initiated in India against a husband and in-laws based on incidents of dowry demand that were made outside of India.

"This Court is of the opinion that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is required for proceeding with against the petitioners herein for the offenses alleged in the complaint, on the basis of which the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered. As this Court is not satisfied that the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the C.C., as having been committed in India."

The order was passed by Justice T. Madhavi Devi in a batch of criminal petitions filed by the husband and in laws of the de facto complainant, praying that the Court may quash the criminal proceedings pending against them under various sections of the IPC, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The petitioners/accused raised various arguments including that that complaint was filed by the GPA holder of the de facto complaint, that ingredients of the alleged offenses were absent and that the de facto complainant was a habitual offender. However, the main argument raised by the accused was that no prior sanction from the Central government as mandated under section 188 of CrPc was acquired.

The petitioners/accused stated that the de facto complainant and the accused/husbands were residents of the USA and had solemnized their wedding there. Further they also had a child in the USA. The accused/husband contended that he had filed for divorce before the foreign Court and as a counter blast, the de facto complainant basing on a vague and unrelated incident that happened during their trip to India, filed the present case.

The de facto complainant on the other hand contended that when they were in India, in 2020 the accused/husband had demanded dowry and based on that incident the complainant was filed. She provided specific dates and amounts given to the accused as dowry and pleaded that even if one incident occurred in India, no prior consent would be required to try that offense.

After going through various judgements and section 188, the Bench noted that the fight that happened between the de facto complainant and the accused/husband seemed to be regarding infidelity and the in-laws find no mention. The Court noted that the allegation of demand for dowry in India did not seem legitimate.

"..there was an altercation in respect of the extra marital affair of accused No.1 with another woman who was residing in USA. However, there is also an allegation that at that point of time, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have demanded additional dowry, immediately after the recital of the same....The allegations of demand for additional dowry are bald and appear to have been made only to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC."

The Court conceded that yes, even if one incident occurred in India, it would not require a prior sanction, however, the charge sheet did not disclose any offense against the accused that were committed in India. All offenses, on the basis of which the charge sheet was registered, were committed outside of India and would require the sanction of the Central Government.

"In the case on hand, except for the sole incident or allegation of an altercation between the husband and wife, i.e., the de facto complainant and accused No.1 in India, there are no other allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 of having committed the same in India...the alleged incident which has happened in India also did not make out the case of alleged offences. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the de facto complainant that even if one incident has occurred in India, then previous sanction of the Central Government is not necessary, is not in accordance with law. If the petitioners were to be tried for any of the offences in India, it can only be in respect of the incident that has happened in India."

Thus the petitions were allowed.

CrlP 6110 & 6074 of 2022

Counsel for petitioner: T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy(Sr) representing S.Surender Reddy.

Counsel for respondent: D. Prakash Reddy (Sr) representing Ch.Ravinder.

Click Here To Read/Download Order