HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.P.No.6711 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in Crime No.213 of 2008 on the file of W.P.S., C.C.S., Hyderabad/charge sheet No.32 of 2009, dated 20-02-2009, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the basis of a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein (the de facto complainant in Crime No.213 of 2008) (for short ‘the de facto complainant’) against the petitioners herein (A-1 to A-3 and A-6 in Crime No.213 of 2008) (for short ‘A-1 to A-3 and A- 6’), on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Originally, the de facto complainant filed a complaint with the following averments: A-1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. A-2 and A-3 are the father and mother, A-4 and A-5 are the sisters, and A-6 is the brother of A-1, respectively. The de facto complainant was married to A-1 on 09-11-2003. They lived sometime along with their son at Bellevue, Washington, U.S.A. She visited India in December 2005 along with their son to see her father who had a heart attack. Then she visited her in-laws’ residence situated at Plot No.150, H.No.5-14-15, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Moula-Ali (Post), Hyderabad. They harassed her at that juncture claiming that she was not doing any job and they were not receiving any income from her. In fact, she had temporarily stopped her job to look after her newly born baby. On 17- 02-2006, A-4, a divorcee who lives in the same house, abused her in filthy language as ‘aduku thine vallu’ and attacked her with a slipper. A-2 and A-3 supported her and encouraged her in doing so, making additional allegations and demanding additional dowry. They demanded to convey her family’s newly constructed house as dowry but her parents did not agree for that. They grabbed her 9 months’ old son and locked her in a room. She was scared that they would kill her. They used to yell loudly using course words abusing all the members of her family. They also physically kicked her by which she fell on the ground. She called her husband to rescue her, but he could not do so. As her father and sister went to the house of A-2 and A-3 and asked about their harassment of her, they abused them also in fowl language. The words they used cannot be put on paper. A-1 used all her salary to buy a house in Auburn, W.A. and put the house only in his name. When she refused to go to U.S., A-1 came to India and took her to U.S. after giving assurance that he would not harm her. After six months, he again started harassing her physically, mentally and emotionally. A-1 is an alcoholic and he underwent intensive alcohol dependency treatment programme. A-1 used to leave her and their son alone in the house and go out to have alcohol and return to the house in the mid night at 2.00 a.m. A-3 is also a drunkard like his son and continuously comes home in drunken condition and is trying to kidnap their child. He also demands her to give more money as additional dowry to his son. Their intentions were to get her into trouble by dragging her to a Court of Law in U.S.A. She is not allowed by them to live in peace at their home neither in U.S. nor in India. Hence, the complaint. 3. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the accused is entitled to quash the proceedings? 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for A-1 to A-3 and A- 6 that so far as the offences alleged to have taken place in USA are concerned, by virtue of Section 188 Cr.P.C., unless necessary permission of the Central Government is obtained, they cannot be prosecuted for those offences, relying upon the decision reported in Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. Tr. Principal Secretary and Another[1]. It is also his contention that the allegations made against A-1 to A-3 and A-6 are bald in nature and do not attract the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A IPC. 5. There are clear allegations supported by record to the effect that A-1 to A-3 and A-6 along with others involved in harassing the petitioner i.e. the de facto complainant for bringing additional amount. There is prima facie case in that context. But by virtue of Section 188 Cr.P.C., without obtaining necessary permission from the concerned, the accused cannot be prosecuted for any harassment said to have taken place in U.S.A. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed partly observing that without necessary permission from the Central Government, A-1 to A-3 and A-6 should not be prosecuted for the offences said to have taken place in USA further observing that they can be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code said to have taken place in India because there is prima facie material in the complaint in that context. ___________________________ 23rd December 2011 G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J kvr [1] III (2011) CCR 452 (SC)