IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4421 of 2008 Between: C. Surendranath … Petitioner And State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4421 of 2008 ORDER:- 1. The petitioner/A1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in C.C.No.479 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. A reading of the allegations in FIR and in charge sheet together with documents appended thereto, it appears to be a dispute between the couple because of complicated issues including ego conflict, dowry harassment, incompatibility etc. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the de facto complainant/second respondent gave report to the police after A1 obtained divorce through an American Court and publication of the same in newspaper. Obtaining of subsequent divorce will not absolve A1 for the deeds, which he is alleged to have committed prior thereto. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the entire allegations of harassment etc., for the sake of dowry took place outside the territory of India i.e., in U.S.A. and that therefore the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is further contended that the case against A2 and A3 was quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.1303 of 2006 by order, dated 13.03.2008, on the ground of jurisdiction. In this connection, useful reference may be made to Thota Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] of the Supreme Court. The following passage therefrom will be apposit herein. “From the complaint made by respondent 2 in the present case, it is clear that the cases relating to alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC had been committed outside India in Botswana, where the petitioner and respondent 2 were residing. At the best it may be said that the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in India and could, therefore, be tried by the Courts in India without having to obtain the previous sanction of the Central Government.” 4. There is no legal bar for launching prosecution in a case of this nature in India and for the Indian Court to take cognizance of the offence; but the only legal embargo under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is to the effect that before commencement of trial in Indian Court of such case, previous sanction of the Central Government therefor is to be obtained. Therefore, the case pending in the lower Court against A1 is not liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed and the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is directed to follow the procedure under Section 188 Cr.P.C., as narrated in Thota Venkateswarlu (1 supra). _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 15.12.2011 ES [1] (2011) 3 SCC (Crl) 772