Telangana High Court
Siddapuram Raghunandan vs The State Of Telangana, on 29 August, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.593 of 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.9262 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short D.P. Act).
2. Heard Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.
3. Respondent No.2-de facto complainant is the father of victim, who is the wife of petitioner-accused No.1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of petitioner was performed with victim on 31.03.2019. At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and 40 tulas of jewellery was given to the petitioner. After marriage, victim and petitioner stayed at Kondapur for 23 days. Later, they left to USA due to petitioner's job. Though they were living together, there was no physical relationship 2 between the spouses and the petitioner used to sleep separately in the bed room. When the victim tried to move closer to him, he used to comment in a negative sense and also harassed her for additional dowry. Later, at request of victim, with great difficulty, they had co-habitation. Then the petitioner expressed that he is suffering with Erectile Dysfunction as such he avoided her. However, the victim conceived. But petitioner being not happy for the same used to harass her. Thereafter, victim was hospitalized with Lupus-Nephritis and in the procedure to have medical examination and treatment, she was aborted. The Doctors advised the petitioner and victim to attend medical counseling and examination for further plan of having children. Subsequently, the petitioner left victim and absconded from the home without giving any information. Petitioner filed a petition for divorce in the American Court. Since the petitioner cheated the victim by marrying her by suppressing his disease of Erectile Dysfunction and harassed her demanding additional dowry, the father of victim i.e., respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner-accused No.1 and others for the aforesaid offences. 3
4. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. All the allegations made in the complaint by the de facto complainant took place in USA. However, the mandatory sanction of the Central Government as is required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained. If the petitioner is suffering from Erectile Dysfunction, the question of victim conceiving does not arise. The petitioner never harassed the victim to bring additional dowry. In fact, he took good care of the victim and he himself transferred Rs.38,01,000/- from his Bank account at USA to the Bank account of the victim at Sangareddy, India. Both the parties were granted divorce by mutual consent on 04.05.2023 in the Court of USA. The Marital Settlement Agreement also contains a specific clause stating that the funds previously transferred to the father of victim shall remain his property, and the petitioner expressly waived any right to claim return of those funds from the victim or her father.
4.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Thotapally Sai Prasanna Kumar vs. 4 The State of Telangana and Ors. 1, wherein, at paragraph No.8, it was held as under:
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Thota Venkateswarlu case MANU/SC/1010/2011: (2011) 9 SCC 527 (supra) on a similar facts where the complaint was made by the 2nd respondent in the said case for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, which were committed outside India in Botswana, where the petitioner and the 2nd respondent therein were residing, observed that: "14. The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M.Sahai, J., observed as follows:- "29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one - - commission of an offence; second - - by an Indian citizen; and third - - that it should have been committed outside the country."
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 1 MANU/TL/0183/2022 IN Crl.P.No.2173 of 2016 5 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."
9. Considering the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court in Crl.P.No.11034 of 2015 and also considering that the limitation for taking cognizance of the offence against A2 to A5 was barred, quashed the proceedings against A2 to A5 in CC No.354 of 2015.
10. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that sanction is not necessarily to be obtained before taking cognizance this Court in Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v. State of A.P. Laws (APH)-2010-1-19 held that:
"5 .............. Relevant words contained in Section 197 Cr.P.C. are to the effect; "no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction". Therefore, sanction for prosecution is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of such a case against the public servant. Sanction has to be previous in point of time and it should be previous to taking cognizance of the offence by the Court or the Magistrate. Subsequent sanction if any obtained cannot cure initial or inceptual defect attached to the case. It is not a curable defect which can be rectified at subsequent stage of the proceedings or before final decision is taken by the criminal Court. The prohibition is in respect of taking cognizance of the offence against the public servant; and the prohibition is not for either commencement of trial or for final decision by way of recording conviction or acquittal. When there is legal prohibition for taking cognizance of the offence, question of the criminal Court proceeding with trial of the case does not arise at all. The criminal Court takes cognizance of offence by issuing of summons or warrant to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. after following the procedure contained in Sections 200, 201 and 202 Cr.P.C. and if not resorted to Section 203 Cr.P.C. Therefore, sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. shall be obtained and presented before the Magistrate prior to stage of issuing of process to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. At the same time, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required for presentation of a complaint before the Magistrate or for recording of sworn statement of the complainant by the Magistrate. Question of applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. has to be considered after examination of the complainant and his witnesses if any, by way of recording of their sworn statements by the Magistrate. There is no option for the criminal Court 6 except to dismiss the complaint in case sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not obtained prior to issuing of process to the accused. The prohibition for taking cognizance of offence contained under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. is a mandatory prohibition and has to be considered at the threshold of the case and not at a subsequent stage. Therefore, taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner/A-1 in this case by the lower Court is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed."
11.Considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which was also applicable to the petitioner-A1 and the judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam case (supra), it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against him, as no sanction of the Central Government was obtained by the prosecuting agency till date to proceed against him.
4.3. Hence, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Assistant 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. 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 7 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 and victim are legally married and have moved to USA. The first allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the marriage was not consummated as he is suffering with Erectile Dysfunction. However, the record unequivocally establishes that the victim conceived during the subsistence of the marriage and her pregnancy was subsequently terminated on medical grounds due to Lupus Nephritis. This fact effectively rebuts the allegation of Erectile Dysfunction.
8. With respect to the second allegation of dowry harassment, prima facie, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to show that he has harassed the victim demanding additional dowry. The documentary evidence on record clearly indicates that the petitioner transferred funds to victim's personal bank account in Sangareddy at India as well as to her father's account. These financial transactions clearly establish that there is no alleged demand for dowry made by the petitioner herein. Furthermore, the medical records substantiate that the petitioner ensured medical care and support during victim's hospitalization, including bearing all associated medical expenses, thereby reflecting his concern and sense of responsibility towards her well- 8 being. It is on record that the marriage between the spouses was dissolved through a Marital Settlement Agreement in the United States, thereby settling all the marital disputes amicably and without coercion.
9. At this instance, it is pertinent to discuss the prominent aspects of the Marital Settlement Agreement, which are extracted hereunder:
B. Monisha is hereby granted, and Raghunandan is hereby divested of all right, title, and interest to the following property:
1. All bank accounts in her name;
2. One half of the value of the Fidelity 401(k) in Raghunandan's name as of the date of the entry of Judgment, as referenced in more detail below;
3. One-half of the value of the vested stock in Raghunandan's name as of the entry of Judgment, as adjusted for gains or losses on those shares between the date of the entry of Judgment and their liquidation, as referenced in more detail below;
4. One-half of the value of the unvested stock in Raghunandan's name accrued as of the date of the entry of Judgment but not vested, as adjusted for gains or losses on those shares between the date of the entry of Judgment and their liquidation, as referenced in more detail below;
5. One-half of the value of the funds held in Raghunandan's name at Karur Vysya Bank in India as of the date of the entry of Judgment, as referenced in more detail below;
6. Household goods and personal items in her possession as of the date of the entry of Judgment;
7. All jewelry and coins/gold/silver that she owns;
8. 100% of any alleged right and/or interest that Raghunandan alleges that Monisha holds in the funds that he gave to her father, as referenced in more detail below; and
9. Fifty percent of the 2022 federal and state tax refunds received in connection with the parties' 2022 joint federal and state tax returns, as referenced in more detail below.
F. Funds received by Monisha's Father: The parties acknowledge and agree that the funds that were previously transferred to Monisha's father by Raghunandan 9 shall remain the property of her father, and Raghunandan waives any and all right to seek reimbursement of those funds from Monisha and/or her father. Raghunandan represents that the amounts transferred to Monisha's father totaled $ 55,380.00.
VI Grounds-Mutual: The parties agree that the marriage is irretrievably broken.
VII. Nature of agreement: The parties state that they have freely entered into this Agreement with full knowledge and information. This Agreement is executed free of any duress, coercion, collusion, or undue influence. In some instances, it represents a compromise of disputed issues. However, both parties believe the terms and conditions to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Both parties further acknowledge that no representations, warranties, promises, covenants, or undertakings of any kind have been made to him or her as an inducement to enter into this Agreement, other than those expressly set forth herein. This Agreement is intended to be and is a complete agreement of the parties as to the subject matter.
XIV Mutual/General Release: Each party releases the other from any claim of any nature whatsoever that may exist on the date of the execution of the Agreement. This release relates to the parties only. Neither party may, at any time hereafter, sue the other party, or his or her heirs, personal representatives, and assigns for the purpose of enforcing any or all of the rights relinquished or waived under this Agreement. Both parties also agree that if any suit is commenced by a party to this Agreement, this release, when pleaded, shall constitute a complete defense to any such claim or suit so instituted by either party.
10. Thus, from the Marital Settlement Agreement and particularly, clause XIV i.e., Mutual/General Release of the said Agreement, it is clearly established that the matter was settled between the parties in amicable terms. In view of the same, the de facto complainant ought to have withdrawn the present complaint lodged against the petitioner. Trying the present criminal complaint, when the matter was already settled between the parties, would amount to abuse of process of law.
11. Crucially, brushing aside all other aspects, the most significant legal infirmity lies in the procedural lapse concerning the prosecution itself. For prosecuting an Indian citizen for an offence committed outside India, charge sheet has to be filed by 10 the prosecuting agency after obtaining the mandatory sanction from the Central Government, as is required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
12. A perusal of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. discloses that the words which were used in the said proviso are "previous sanction of the Central Government", which means that first sanction should be granted by the Central Government and then only, the case has to be proceeded with.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions and even in the judgment of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v. State of A.P. Laws (cited supra), has held that the absence of such prior sanction is a fatal flaw that vitiates the entire criminal proceedings. In the absence of the requisite sanction, the prosecution is rendered non-est in law, and hence, legally unsustainable.
14. However, in the instant case, no such permission was obtained by the prosecuting agency. This is not a mere procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect that strikes at the root of the prosecution.
15. Further, in the present case, the entire alleged incidents took place in U.S.A. and the victim being the wife of the 11 petitioner 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 preferred the complaint before the Court. Moreover, in the present case, respondent No.2 has no personal knowledge about the incident which took place between the petitioner and his wife, so as to adduce any evidence before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of respondent No.2 will be treated as 'hearsay evidence', which is inadmissible in evidence.
16. From any angle looked at, I am of the considered view that there are no grounds to proceed with the criminal trial against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.9262 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
12
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 29.08.2025 BV