AP High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Husband's NRI Relatives For Lack Of S.188 CrPC Sanction

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an NRI brother-in-law and sister-in-law of a woman for alleged cruelty, criminal intimidation and dowry offences arising from alleged incidents in the United States and India.

The allegations against the petitioners were two-fold. One set related to their alleged conduct during the complainant's stay in the United States, while the other concerned alleged incidents after she returned to India.

The Court held that the prosecution for alleged offences committed in the United States was legally infirm as no prior sanction of the Central Government had been obtained under Section 188 Cr.P.C.

In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela also found that the allegations concerning the incidents allegedly committed in India were vague and omnibus and did not contain specific allegations or the necessary ingredients to attract Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Section 188 Cr.P.C. requires previous sanction of the Central Government before an offence committed outside India can be inquired into or tried in India. The provision was therefore central to the Court's consideration of the allegations concerning the petitioners' alleged acts in the United States.

Examining the allegations relating to the incidents in the United States, the Court noted that the statutory requirement under Section 188 Cr.P.C. could not be dispensed with. It observed:

“It is no more res integra that the procedure needs to be followed and adhered to scrupulously in the event the incident occurred in a country (other than India). The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Since, there is no sanction obtained by the Investigating Officer for prosecuting accused Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of for the offences committed outside India, the same constitutes a lacuna which cannot be overlooked. In view of the ration laid down in the said judgments, the proceedings in C.C.No.2057 of 2021, in respect of accused Nos.4 and 5 is quashed so far as Section 498A is concerned and the allegations made outside India.”

The petitioners, accused Nos. 4 and 5, were the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant.

According to the allegations in the charge sheet, the complainant went to the United States in December 2020 after obtaining a student visa. While she was there, her husband allegedly failed to look after her and subjected her to physical and mental harassment.

It was further alleged that the complainant's brother-in-law and his wife harassed her in the USA and that the brother-in-law beat her in the presence of her husband. The charge sheet also alleged a demand for Rs. 1 crore towards additional dowry.

The complainant was allegedly sent back to India in May 2021. After her return, she was allegedly threatened with divorce and dire consequences if the demand for Rs. 1 crore, additional dowry and property documents was not met.

Based on these allegations, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners before the trial court for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5, then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioners contended that Section 188 Cr.P.C. required prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecuting them for the alleged acts in the United States. They further argued that, in the absence of specific and definite allegations allegations, concerning the incidents in India, the in-laws could not be roped into the proceedings.

The State submitted that the allegations in the charge sheet were specific and fell within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC and that the matter ought to be examined at trial. With regard to Section 188 Cr.P.C., the State accepted that the requisite sanction was necessary for offences committed outside India, but opposed quashing the proceedings on that ground.

Turning to the allegations concerning the incidents in India, the Court found force in the petitioners' contention that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC.

The Court found that, “in the absence of specific details of the alleged incidents of crime,” the allegations were vague and omnibus. It further held that the complaint and charge sheet did not contain allegations specific in nature or the requisite ingredients to attract Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On the allegations concerning the incidents in the United States, the Court noted that no sanction had been obtained either before cognizance was taken or thereafter. It held that the investigation was consequently “crippled with legal infirmity.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings insofar as accused Nos. 4 and 5 were concerned.

Counsel for the Petitioners: N. Ashwani Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent-State: K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor