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

Court: High Court for the State of Telangana
Date of judgment: 7 March 2024
Case: Crl.P. Nos. 6110 and 6074 of 2022
Parties: Dubbudu Ramakanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana
Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI

Summary

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.

The question before the court

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
Whether even one alleged incident in India dispenses with sanction for the incidents alleged outside India

What each side argued

The petitioners said the complaint could not be filed through a GPA holder, and that the marriage and all the alleged dowry demands and beatings took place in the USA, so the Hyderabad complaint could not be entertained.
They pointed to a delay of 21 months after the only alleged incident in India, said the complainant and the husband had been living separately since January 2021, that the husband had already filed for divorce in the USA, and that the complaint was a counter blast. They also said the complainant had made a similar complaint in an earlier marriage.
They argued that under Section 188 CrPC no trial could proceed without the previous sanction of the Central Government, and none had been obtained.
For the complainant it was submitted that one incident of demand for additional dowry took place in India during the March 2020 visit, so no sanction was needed. The complainant also relied on Thota Venkateswarlu to say Section 188 is attracted only when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India, on Padal Venkata Rama Reddy to say the High Court under Section 482 need not analyse every aspect of the case meticulously before trial, and on Pramod RS to say a case is not quashed only because the complaint followed a divorce notice.

The court's decision

The Court reproduced Section 188 CrPC. Admittedly, the husband is a citizen of India who was residing in the USA, where the couple married, lived, had a child and were later granted divorce. All the alleged offences were committed in the USA except for one instance said to have happened in India. It read Thota Venkateswarlu to mean that the trial of an offence committed outside India cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the sanction of the Central Government, though offences committed in India may be tried in India. It also noted that a Single Judge of the Court in Bhanu Prasad Variganji had held that proceedings cannot be conducted without the approval of the Government of India where the offences occurred outside India, and that a similar decision was rendered in Thotapally Sai Prasanna Kumar.

The Bench held that only an offence committed in India by an Indian citizen can be tried in India without sanction. Apart from one altercation in India on the intervening night of 21 and 22 March 2020, there were no allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3 of acts in India. That altercation concerned the husband's alleged extra-marital affair. The allegation that additional dowry was demanded at that time was followed immediately in the complaint by details of money given and property bought in the husband's name, and the Court found that this incident also did not make out the alleged offences. The allegations of demand for additional dowry were bald and appeared to have been made only to attract Section 498A IPC.

The Court rejected the complainant's contention that sanction is unnecessary if even one incident took place in India, saying it was not in accordance with law. If the petitioners were to be tried in India at all, it could only be for the altercation of 21 and 22 March 2020.

It concluded that previous sanction under Section 188 CrPC was required for proceeding against the petitioners for the offences alleged. Because it was not satisfied that the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made out as committed in India, none of the offences could be tried in India. Both criminal petitions were allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 1873 of 2022 were quashed.

Precedents referred to

Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 9 SCC 527
Bhanu Prasad Variganji v. State of Telangana, W.P. No. 41432 of 2018 dated 16.03.2020
Thotapally Sai Prasanna Kumar v. State of Telangana, Crl.P. No. 2173 of 2016 dated 04.02.2022
Rajesh Gutta v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 1 ALD (Crl.) 885 (AP)
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy, (2011) 12 SCC 437
Pramod RS v. State of Karnataka, Karnataka High Court, 2023
Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 360
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423

Provisions referred to

Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 482 CrPC
Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court for the State of Telangana. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

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

AP High Court Allowed; proceedings quashed against accused Nos. 4 and 5 ·28 Jul 2026 ·Criminal

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

The question: 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

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.

Crl.P. No. 5220 of 2023

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