Court holds allegations related to acts committed in the USA cannot be tried in India without Central Government sanction; vague and omnibus charges in India insufficient to sustain prosecution under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act
In a significant judgment delivered on July 28, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela, quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband's brother and sister-in-law in a dowry harassment case. The case, registered as Criminal Petition No. 5220 of 2023, concerned allegations under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The petitioners, accused Nos. 4 and 5, who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the husband (accused No.1), challenged the charge sheet filed against them in the Special Judicial Magistrate Court at Guntur. The allegations were twofold: one set related to incidents allegedly occurring in the United States of America (USA), where the petitioners resided, and the other referred to events in India after the complainant returned in May 2021.
The Court meticulously examined the charge sheet and found that the allegations made against the petitioners concerning acts in the USA could not be inquired into or tried in India without the prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), read with Section 4 of the IPC. It was undisputed that no such sanction was obtained. This procedural lapse rendered the prosecution for offences committed outside India legally unsustainable.
Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the allegations made in India against the petitioners. These included vague claims of demanding an additional dowry of Rs.1 crore and issuing threats of dire consequences, including divorce if demands were unmet. The Court observed that these allegations were omnibus and lacked the foundational particulars-such as specific dates, places, and overt acts-required to establish the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, or offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The judgment drew heavily on precedents set by the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, including key rulings in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025), Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012), and Chennamsetty Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2026), which collectively caution against the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes by implicating relatives without clear and specific allegations of active involvement.
Justice Gedela emphasized the necessity for courts to exercise caution in permitting prosecutions against relatives of the husband based on generalized accusations. The Court reiterated that the absence of specific allegations indicating the active participation of the accused amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 4 and 5 in C.C.No.2057 of 2021, effectively relieving them from the charges under the aforementioned provisions. The Court's order underscores the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards concerning extraterritorial offences and the need for specificity in allegations to prevent harassment and misuse of criminal law in sensitive matrimonial matters.
The State of Andhra Pradesh was represented by Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, while Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar appeared for the petitioners.
This ruling reinforces judicial safeguards against frivolous and unsubstantiated criminal proceedings in dowry harassment cases, especially where allegations transcend national boundaries, and highlights procedural compliance with Section 188 Cr.P.C. as indispensable before proceeding with trials involving offences committed abroad.
Bottom Line:
Dowry harassment case against husband's brother and sister-in-law quashed - Allegations relating to acts committed in USA could not be inquired into or tried in India without previous sanction of Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. - Remaining allegations in India were vague, omnibus and lacked specific particulars to attract Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 188 Cr.P.C., Section 4 IPC
Girish Chandra Yadapalli v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990447
