HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6857 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioners are A-4 and A-5 in C.C.No.336 of 2008 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the trial Court’). They filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the said case against them. The offences alleged are those punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are stated to be the brother and sister of the husband of the de facto complainant, respectively. 3. The charge sheet allegations show that both these petitioners were residing in Canada even at the time of marriage and they further show that the offences alleged against them are said to have been committed by them only in Canada. 4. The argument of Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, is that in view of the above position, want of sanction of Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. operates as a bar for the trial Court to proceed with the trial against these petitioners and since there is no such sanction, the proceedings against them should be quashed. 5. Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, did not dispute that the charge sheet allegations would show that the two petitioners were in Canada even at the time of marriage and that the offences alleged against them took place in Canada. 6. If that is so, it follows that trial of the case cannot be proceeded with against these petitioners in India without the sanction of the Central Government which is to be given as contemplated under proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. which deals with offences committed by citizens of India beyond the territorial limits of India. 7. This legal position is made clear in a decision of our Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1]. In view of the bar contained in Section 188 Cr.P.C. and the above facts’ situation, it follows that the trial Court cannot proceed with the trial against these two petitioners unless sanction is obtained from the Central Government for their prosecution. Admittedly, the prosecution did not file any such sanction order in the presentcase. 8. The petitioners have however sought for quashing proceedings, but I think as trial can be proceeded against them with the sanction of the Central Government, the proceedings cannot be quashed straight away. In the circumstances, it is ordered, in view of the above legal position, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial of the case against these two petitioners unless sanction of Central Government is given under Section 188 Cr.P.C. and till then, both the petitioners need not also appear before the trial Court. 9. The Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. _______________________ 14th November 2011 kvr [1] III (2011) CCR 452 (SC)