Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court ruled that when alleged offences under Section 498A of the IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act are committed outside the territory of India, the requirement of previous sanction of the Centre under Section 188 of the CrPC is a prerequisite. The judge made the observation while dealing with two criminal petitions filed by an accused and his parents. It was the case of the wife, the complainant, that she got married in October 2014 in the US, and came to India in February 2020 along with her brother and husband. She alleged that on the date of her return from India, there was an altercation between her and the husband. Thereafter, the wife filed a complaint at the women police station of Rachakonda, alleging that the husband along with his parents had demanded cash, gold and other articles towards dowry at the time of the marriage; and that the husband was consuming alcohol heavily and picking up quarrels and that during their stay in the US, her husband’s parents had demanded additional dowry. The police took up an investigation and filed a chargesheet. The petitioners alleged that at no point of time had the wife submitted any complaint to the police or to the elders with regard to the alleged incident. They contended that it was after 21 months of the alleged incident that the wife had filed the complaint at Hyderabad and therefore there was an abnormal delay in submitting the report to the police which itself showed the falsity of the complaint. The petitioners also contended that as the husband had filed a divorce case against the complainant in the USA, the wife had filed the case in Hyderabad as a counterblast. Counsel for the petitioner argued that where an offence involving an Indian citizen is committed outside India, the trial should not be proceeded without the previous sanction of the Centre. In the present case, no such sanction had been obtained by the police and the proceedings were liable to be quashed. On the other hand, it was argued that though the marriage and other incidents had happened in the US, there was one incident of demand for additional dowry in India when they visited here on March 2020. Even if one incident happened in India, there is no requirement of obtaining previous sanction of the Centre to proceed with the trial. In her judgment, Justice Madhavi Devi, after examining various decisions of the apex court, said, “The contention of the learned senior counsel for the de facto complainant that even if one incident has occurred in India, then previous sanction of the Central Government is not necessary, is not in accordance with law. If the petitioners were to be tried for any of the offences in India, it can only be in respect of the incident that has happened in India on March 21 and 22, 2020, for the altercation between the complainant and accused No.1 and his parents, i.e., accused No.s 2 and 3, which happens to be on the issue of extra-marital affair of accused No.1. The allegations of demand for additional dowry are bald and appear to have been made only to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC.” The judge accordingly allowed the criminal petitions.
2. HC directs BSNL to avail alternate remedy.
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar disposed of appeals directing BSNL to avail appropriate remedy as per law in a dispute arising out of a lease agreement. The panel was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) challenging an order of a single judge. The appellant contended that a dispute arose out of a lease agreement entered into with Vidyananda Educational Society regarding a premises in Gachibowli, Hyderabad, for a period of 10 years. BSNL invoked the termination clause and terminated the lease agreement and directed the society to vacate the premises within three months since BSNL was selling the premises. The appellant contended that BSNL was competent to issue proceedings under the Unauthorised Occupation Act and this would also prevail over the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The bench was of the view that BSNL cannot be permitted to invoke any remedy under the Unauthorised Occupation Act and can avail the remedy of arbitration in accordance with the terms and conditions entered into between the parties.
3. Is CIBIL score basis to remove member?
