‘Hearsay evidence inadmissible’: Why Telangana HC quashed criminal proceedings against NRI accused of harassing wife in US

The case originated from a police complaint lodged in September 2021 by the man’s father-in-law, who accused him of harassing his daughter. At the time of the couple’s wedding in April 2016, the family had given Rs 1.5 crore and 156 tolas of gold as dowry and the couple moved to Washington, DC, the next month. The father-in-law contended that the petitioner started harassing his daughter mentally and physically, treating her like a slave.

He further contended that his daughter gave birth to a girl in November 2019 and returned to India along with the baby, after which the petitioner has never bothered to visit her. They also alleged that the husband misappropriated the entire dowry amount and harassed her for additional dowry.

The petitioner (husband) had been booked under sections 498 A (cruelty by husband and family), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

‘Offence committed outside India, prior sanction of Centre mandatory for trial’

The court noted that the primary contention was that the alleged incidents of harassment occurred in the US. Under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), trial for any offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen requires the mandatory prior sanction of the central government. “A significant legal infirmity emerges from the procedural lapse concerning the very initiation of the prosecution,” the judge stated.

The court observed that the statutory mandate requires that sanction must first be accorded by the Centre, and only thereafter can the case be inquired into or proceeded with. The court stressed that no such sanction had been obtained in this case. Justice Sridevi remarked that “this omission is not a mere procedural irregularity but constitutes a jurisdictional defect that goes to the very root of the prosecution.”

The court further noted that the alleged victim, i.e. the petitioner’s wife, was the right person to file the complaint, but no reason has been given in the complaint as to why her father filed the complaint. The court also took into account that the couple’s marriage had already been dissolved in January 2023 by an Order of the Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland, which was ordered, adjudged and decreed in the presence and agreement of both the parties.

Further, the judge examined the particular nature of the evidence presented. Since the allegations concerned events in the USA and the complainant (father-in-law) remained in India, his testimony was deemed legally insufficient.

In conclusion, Justice Sridevi observed that “In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case…there are no grounds to proceed with the criminal trial against the petitioner-accused No.1. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law”. All pending miscellaneous applications related to the case were also closed.