AP High Court quashes 498A case against husband's brother, sister-in-law: no S.188 CrPC sanction for alleged acts in USA

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date of judgment: 28 July 2026
Case: Crl.P. No. 5220 of 2023
Parties: Accused Nos. 4 and 5 (husband's brother and sister-in-law) v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another
Bench: Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Outcome: Allowed; proceedings quashed against accused Nos. 4 and 5

Summary

The Andhra Pradesh High Court (Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela) on 28 July 2026 allowed Criminal Petition No. 5220 of 2023 and quashed C.C. No. 2057 of 2021, pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur, as against the brother and sister-in-law of the husband (accused Nos. 4 and 5). The Bench held that the allegations about incidents in the USA could not be pursued because no previous sanction of the Central Government had been obtained under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the allegations about events in India were vague and omnibus and did not make out an offence under Section 498A or 506 read with Section 34 IPC, or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant married the first accused on 5 July 2018 at Guntur. She joined him in the USA (October 2018) and led marital life there. The charge sheet alleges physical and mental harassment by the husband at the instigation of the other accused, that the brother-in-law and his wife harassed her while she was in the USA, and that the brother-in-law beat her in front of her husband. It further says she returned to India (Jan-2020), managed a student visa and went back to the USA in December 2020, and was sent back to India in May 2021. It alleges that all five accused demanded Rs.1 crore as additional dowry and threatened her with dire consequences. The charge sheet notes that the brother-in-law and his wife also work in the USA.

The order was passed in Crl.P. No. 5220 of 2023 (CNR APHC010357032023). The full order can be found on the Andhra Pradesh High Court website under that case number.

The question before the court

Whether a prosecution for a cruelty and dowry case can go on for acts alleged to have taken place in the USA without the previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC
Whether the allegations about events in India against the husband's brother and sister-in-law disclosed the ingredients of Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

What each side argued

The petitioners argued that the incident of harassment and beating, said to have taken place in the USA, was outside India, and that the charge sheet was vitiated because no sanction had been obtained under Section 188 CrPC read with Section 4 IPC.
They relied on a Coordinate Bench of the same Court in Kasu Jagathi, on the Kerala High Court in Darvin Dominic, on Sartaj Khan, and on two Telangana High Court rulings, R. Sai Sruthi and Dubbudu Ramakanth Reddy.
For the allegations in India they said the Rs.1 crore demand and the threats were general and omnibus, and cited Dara Lakshmi Narayana, Chennamsetty Venkateswara Rao, Geeta Mehrotra, Sushil Kumar Purbey and Preeti Gupta.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor said the allegations in the charge sheet were specific and could only be tested at a full trial. On Section 188 she accepted that sanction is required for offences committed outside India, but argued that the allegations against accused Nos. 4 and 5 should not be quashed on a technical ground.

The court's decision

The Court noted that the allegations in the charge sheet are of two kinds: the incident in the USA when they were residing together, and incidents in India after the complainant returned in May 2021. On the first, it held that the procedure under Section 188 CrPC has to be followed scrupulously when the incident occurred in another country, and that the rulings relied on by the petitioners squarely applied. Since the investigating officer had obtained no sanction for prosecuting accused Nos. 4 and 5 for offences committed outside India, the Court called this a lacuna that could not be overlooked and quashed the proceedings against them as regards Section 498A and the allegations made outside India. It added that where a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone.

On the allegations in India, the Bench agreed with the petitioners that they did not constitute an offence, much less one under Section 498A IPC. There were no specific details of any incident, the allegations were vague and omnibus, and the complaint and charge sheet lacked the ingredients of Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court extracted passages from Geeta Mehrotra, Sushil Kumar Purbey and Preeti Gupta on the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations, and on the courts having to be extremely careful and cautious with such complaints.

The Court recorded that no sanction had been obtained to proceed with the complaint or the investigation, either before cognizance was taken or after it, and held that the investigation was crippled with legal infirmity.

Criminal Petition No. 5220 of 2023 was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No. 2057 of 2021 were quashed in so far as accused Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned. Pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Precedents referred to

Kasu Jagathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl.P. No. 1932 of 2025 and batch
Sartaj Khan, 2022 LiveLaw SC 321
Darvin Dominic v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2903
Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 9 SCC 527
R. Sai Sruthi v. State of Telangana, Crl.P. No. 17955 of 2025
Dubbudu Ramakanth Reddy v. State of Telangana, Crl.P. Nos. 6110 and 6074 of 2022
Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735
Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741

Provisions referred to

Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 208 of the BNSS)
Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS
Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code
Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Search for the full order on the court's website using the case number given above.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Criminal 498A Quashing Dowry Prohibition Act Section 188 Crpc

Related judgments

Telangana High Court ·7 Mar 2024 ·Criminal

Telangana HC quashes 498A case against husband and parents: alleged acts in USA need S.188 CrPC sanction

The question: Whether previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC is needed to try an Indian citizen for matrimonial offences alleged mostly in the USA

The Telangana High Court (Justice T. Madhavi Devi), by a common order dated 7 March 2024 in Criminal Petition Nos. 6110 and 6074 of 2022, quashed C.C. No. 1873 of 2022 pending before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy. The petitioners were the husband and his parents (accused Nos. 1 to 3). The Court held that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC was required, because the alleged offences, except for one instance, were committed in the USA, and that the one alleged incident in India did not make out the offences charged. The husband and the complainant were both working in the USA on employment visas. They married on 3 October 2014 at New Jersey, and a marriage certificate was issued on 7 October 2014. They had a son and were later granted a divorce in the USA. On 15 December 2021 the complainant's father, as her GPA holder, lodged a complaint in India, registered as Crime No. 494 of 2021 at Women Police Station, Rachakonda, under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police filed a charge sheet as C.C. No. 1873 of 2022. The accused filed petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 1873 of 2022. The order was passed in Crl.P. Nos. 6110 and 6074 of 2022. The order can be found on the Telangana High Court website under these case numbers.

Crl.P. Nos. 6110 and 6074 of 2022

Delhi High Court Dismissed ·5 Oct 2026 ·Writ Jurisdiction

High Court declines independent inquiry, compensation and fresh guidelines over December 2019 Jamia police action

The question: Whether an independent commission, SIT or transfer of investigation should be ordered for the alleged police excesses at Jamia Millia Islamia on 13 and 15 December 2019

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, has dismissed a batch of eight writ petitions arising from the events at and around Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019, in the backdrop of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed NRC. The petitioners had sought an independent judicial commission, court-monitored committee or Special Investigation Team, compensation for injuries and alleged unlawful detentions, guidelines on police action inside educational institutions, and preservation of evidence. The Court held that the case did not fall within the narrow category of exceptional cases that justify use of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It noted that two FIRs had been registered and investigated by a Special Investigation Team of the Crime Branch and charge-sheets filed, that the National Human Rights Commission had inquired into the incidents and reported on 18.05.2020, and that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the University had been dismissed on 03.02.2021 and not challenged. The Court stressed that this was not a finding on the merits of the allegations or on the culpability of any individual. The petitions were filed by different petitioners after the police action of 15.12.2019. The Supreme Court had earlier, on 17.12.2019, declined to set up a single committee and left the aggrieved persons to approach the High Courts concerned. Several prayers had become infructuous by passage of time, and the arguments were confined to the surviving reliefs. The Court did not interfere in respect of the incidents at Aligarh Muslim University, where the Allahabad High Court Division Bench had requested the NHRC to undertake a complete inquiry.

W.P.(C)/13469/2019

Madras High Court Dismissed ·21 Aug 2026 ·Criminal

Madras HC: accused cannot demand his own representation to the CBI as an unrelied document at charge-framing stage

The question: Whether an accused can obtain, at the stage of framing of charge, a document not relied upon by the prosecution, under Section 207 Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice or Section 91 Cr.P.C.

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS by A. Raja, a sitting Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), against an order of the Special Judge for trial of criminal cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. The Special Judge had dismissed his application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which sought copies of documents the prosecution had not relied upon. The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.23 of 2022, which arises from FIR RC-MA1-2015-A-0037 registered by the CBI/ACB, Chennai. He faces charges under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of that Act. While the case was at the stage of framing of charges, he asked for a copy of a representation he had himself submitted on 22.08.2015 seeking closure of the FIR, together with the decision the CBI took on it. The Special Judge dismissed the application on 08.12.2025 (Crl.M.P.No.10038 of 2025). The High Court held that the representation was admittedly with the petitioner and was not a document of sterling quality, that it fell under none of the categories in Section 207, and that its non-supply would cause no prejudice to his defence. It found no infirmity in the Special Judge's order and dismissed the petition.

CRL OP/7122/2026