THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.5339 AND 5341 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in Crl.P.No.5341 of 2008 are the parents of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5339 of 2008. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.5339 of 2008 is the husband of the second respondent in both the petitions. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.5339 of 2008 shall be called the husband and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5341 of 2008 shall be called the parents of the husband hereafter. The second respondent on both the petitions shall be referred to as the wife. 2. The husband and the parents of the husband filed these petitions to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.58 of 2008. Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the parents of the husband submitted that although stay was granted in both the cases, nevertheless, the charge sheet was filed and was numbered as C.C.No.1430 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and that the husband and parents of the husband consequently amended the prayers in the petitions seeking for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.1430 of 2008. 3. The second respondent is the wife of the husband. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the wife would appear to have obtained divorce from the husband in United States and would appear to have contracted a subsequent marriage. As rightly submitted by Sri A.S.E.Bose, learned counsel for the second respondent/wife, these aspects are irrelevant for consideration in these two petitions. However, it may be noticed that unfortunately, both the daughters of the husband/petitioner and second respondent/wife are now no more. It is the case of the learned counsel for the husband that the children died as they did not have proper care which lead to their death. Again these factors are primarily irrelevant for consideration in these petitions. 4. The basic case of the wife is that the husband and the parents of the husband harassed her for dowry and otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the complaint lodged by the wife does not show that there was demand for additional dowry. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife drew my attention to the charge sheet, where it was lodged that the parents of the husband administered demand for additional dowry to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, such an allegation was not made in the complaint itself. I, therefore, hold that prima facie, there was no allegation of additional dowry demand either by the husband or by the parents of the husband. 5. It is not as though Section 498A IPC is confined to cases of demand for additional dowry only. Any cruelty by the husband or relatives of the husband would amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC, notwithstanding there being no demand for additional dowry. Whether the second respondent prima facie established that there was cruelty on the part of the husband and the parents of the husband is the question. The other part of the coin is whether the petitioners are able to show that the second respondent prima facie did not establish that the petitioners treated the second respondent/wife cruelly. 6. So far as the allegation against the parents of the husband are concerned, a reading of the complaint would show that the allegations against the parents of the husband are that the parents instigated the husband to treat the second respondent cruelly and that the instigation was through telephonic communication with the husband. 7. The parents of the husband are residents of Berhampur. It is not the case of anybody that they had been to United States where the husband and the second respondent were residing. The allegation of the wife that the parents of the husband used to instruct telephonically to ill-treat the wife are wild allegations. I am afraid that such wild allegations by themselves cannot constitute prima facie offence under Section 498A IPC. 8. At what point did the parents of the husband instigate their son? What was the nature of the instigation? What was the immediate reaction of such instigation by parents to the son? These aspects have not been spoken to in the complaint lodged by the wife. I therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the husband and parents of the husband that prima facie, no case is made out against the parents of the husband. The case is liable to be quashed so far as the parents of the husband are concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the husband also contended that no allegations are made against the husband as well. The wife made several allegations against the husband. She contended that the husband has not allowed the wife to have access to the cash or credit card or chequebooks, albeit the wife also was an employee. The learned counsel for the husband filed certain proceedings before the American Court. The American Courts concluded that the wife was the aggressor of domestic abuse. The learned counsel for the wife contended that the findings of the American Courts are not binding on the Indian Courts and that the decisions of the American Courts at best are of persuasive value only. 10. Be that as it may, the American Courts have held in more than one proceedings that the wife did not behave properly with the husband and not the other way. It is also a fact that the wife filed proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Admittedly both these cases were closed for non-prosecution by the wife. 11. Inter alia, it is contended by the learned counsel for the husband that when the husband is an American citizen, in view of Section 188 Cr.P.C., prosecution could not be initiated against the husband without prior sanction. Under Section188 Cr.P.C. when an offence is committed outside India by a non-citizen, prosecution can be initiated with the sanction of Union of India only. It is the case of the learned counsel for the husband that the offence was entirely committed in America, that the husband is an American citizen and that the case was filed against the husband in India. 12. A reading of the complaint shows that all the allegations relate to the overt acts on the part of the husband in United States of America. I therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the husband that a case cannot be tried without sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. As the sanction has not been precluded, the case is liable to be quashed against the husband. 13. I, at the same time point out that the allegations against the husband so far as the complaint is concerned are not vague, but are specific. This petition so far as the husband is concerned therefore, deserves to be quashed primarily on the ground that the wife filed the case without sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. 14. For the above mentioned reasons, the case against the husband as well as against the parents of the husband are not maintainable. Thus the two petitions consequently are allowed. C.C.No.1430 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam is hereby quashed. __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J NOVEMBER 02, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.5339 AND 5341 OF 2008 Between in Crl.P.No.5341 of 2008: Yetirajam Manorama and another. …PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENTS Between in Crl.P.No.5339 of 2008: Yetirajam Bhavani Prasad. …PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following :