AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In these two petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 7876/2010 on the file of VIII A.C.M.M. Bangalore for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners in Crl. P. No. 724/2011 are accused Nos. 2 to 5 and the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 654/2012 is accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 7876/2010 pending on the file of Trial Court. The respondent in both the petitions is the complainant. In this order for convenience the parties are referred to their status before the trial Court. Accused No. 1 is the husband of second respondent. Second respondent/complainant married the accused No. 1 on 27.03.2008. After marriage the second respondent went to United Kingdom with her husband. On account of some differences between second respondent and her husband she lodged a complaint on 12.8.2008 with the police at United Kingdom inter-alia contending that she was subjected to verbal and physical abuse, she was punched, kicked, beaten, slapped, thrown to the floor etc. After some time the second respondent left United Kingdom and returned to India in the month of August 2008. Thereafter the second respondent withdrew her complaint against her husband filed before the police at United Kingdom as per Annexure-C dated 15.8.2008 and the same reads as under:
15/08/2008
From:
Smt. Sowmya Mahadevaru Hegde Bangalore 271, 18th ''D'' Mani 6th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore 95. Karnataka, India.
To:
Chief Superintendent of Police Kendal Police station Busher Walk Kendal, LA9 4RJ.
Sir,
Sub: Regarding the withdrawal of my complaint against Dr. Subramanya Gopadi Nagaraja Upadhayaya Dated 12/08/2008
With reference to the above I submit that a complaint was filed by me against my husband Dr. Subramanya Gopadi Nagaraja Upadhyaya relating to domestic violence. But as assured by my husband through his father to settle the matter amicably to maintain the harmonious relationship of our marital life for our welfare. I intend to withdraw my complaint for time.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Soumya Mahadevaru Hegadu
Now the second respondent lodged complaint with the first respondent police and the same came to be registered in Cr. No. 104/2009 for the offences punishable tinder Section 498A, 420 and 430 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation charge sheet is fried in C.C. No. 7876/2010 on the file of VIII ACMM, Bangalore.
In the complaint lodged by the second respondent on 13.02.2009 the main allegations are against her husband accused No. 1. No specific allegations are made against the accused Nos. 2 to 5 and no overacts are alleged against them. Even in the charge sheet there are no allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 5. Even if the entire charge sheet is accepted as true then the same do not constitute an offence against accused Nos. 2 to 5. On this ground alone the proceedings against the accused Nos. 2 to 5 are liable to quashed.
Second respondent after her return from United Kingdom in the month of August 2008 is residing separately from accused Nos. 2 to 5. It is seen from the record that there are exchange of Email between second respondent and her husband and also exchange of lawyer''s notices. In the Email correspondence and exchange of lawyer''s notices also no allegations are made against accused Nos. 2 to 5. Therefore, the implication of accused Nos. 2 to 5 in the criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. On this ground also the proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 5 are liable to be quashed.
Admittedly, the second respondent and her husband accused No. 1 were living together at United Kingdom till August 2008. On the date of lodging the complaint by the second respondent with the first respondent police, her husband was residing at United Kingdom. Even on the date of filing the charge sheet accused No. 1 was residing at United Kingdom. The jurisdictional Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence against the accused No. 1 without there being a sanction by the Central Government as required u/s 188 of Cr.P.C. In identical circumstances the Andhra Pradesh High court in Rajesh Gutta Vs. State of A.P., held as under:
The entire reading of the complaint and charge sheet, it is evident that the entire occurrence took place in the United States of America. The allegations contained in the complaint also regarding the occurrences in the United States of America. Of course, the offence committed by a person, which is punishable under the law in India, he can be prosecuted for the offence committed abroad. But, at the same time Section 188 of Cr.P.C. mandates that no court shall take cognizance except the previous sanction by the Central Government when an offence is committed outside the jurisdiction of India.
In the instant case, admittedly no sanction is obtained u/s 188 Cr.P.C. from the Central Government to proceed against the accused No. 1. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused No. 1 is bad in law. On this ground the proceedings against the accused No. 1 are liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
i) Petitions are hereby allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C. No. 7876/2010 on the file of VIII ACMM, Bangalore are hereby quashed.
iii) It is open for the respondent police to proceed against accused-1 after obtaining sanction from the Central Government as required u/s 188 Cr.P.C. if they so desire.
iv) Ordered accordingly.