IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.284 OF 2009 Between: Sathya Sudha Bindu Boda & 5 others … PETITIONERS And 1. T. Nehamial VK 2. The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.284 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 5/A1 to A5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 363 and 365 I.P.C. and Section 12(b) of the Passports Act (in short, the Act) in C.C.No.969 of 2005, on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. 2. Subject child herein is Aron Sonu Thota, who is son of the first respondent/de facto complainant. Wife of the de facto complainant died after delivering the child when the child was too young. A1 is sister, A3 is father, A4 is mother and A5 is brother of the deceased mother of the child. A2 is husband of A1. It is alleged that after the death of his wife, the child was entrusted to A3 and A4 for custody as grand parents and that subsequently, A1 and A2 took away the child out of India to United States of America by giving false declaration that the child is their own son. It is alleged that A3 to A5 helped A1 and A2 in taking away the child. 3. As per Section 15 of the Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under the Act without previous sanction of the Central Government or such Officer or authority as may be authorized by the Central Government by order in writing in that behalf. The police did not obtain any such sanction under Section 15 of the Act for filing charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 12(b) of the Act. Therefore, charging A1 to A5 for offence punishable under Section 12(b) of the Act has no legs to stand. 4. Insofar as A5 is concerned, there are no specific allegations against him with regard to participation in the offence relating to taking away of the child from out of India by A1 and A2. Therefore, the case cannot be continued against A5, simply because he happened to be a family member. 5. With regard to offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 363 and 365 I.P.C. are concerned, it is a question of fact which has to be decided by the trial Court after full trial, in which both the parties will be permitted to lead evidence. 6. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that after death of his wife, the first respondent/de facto complainant was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. and that after he came out of that case, the first respondent had given the present report to the police and that since birth of the child, the child was always in care of A1 only. These questions are also on facts, which this cannot go into in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings under Section 12(b) of the Act and against the fifth petitioner/A5 are concerned. The criminal petition is partly dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 to 4/A1 to A4 and in respect of the I.P.C. offences are concerned. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 05, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.284 OF 2009 August 05, 2010 KL