Section 208 BNSS | Dowry Offences with Partial Domestic Acts Triable in India Without Sanction: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that criminal proceedings for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, may proceed in India even when part of the alleged conduct occurred abroad, provided a substantial portion of the offence - such as demand, harassment, or receipt of dowry - takes place within Indian territory. The Court rejected petitions seeking quashing of proceedings on grounds of extraterritoriality and lack of sanction, reinforcing that cognizance does not require prior Central Government approval under Section 208 of BNSS.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

This case arises from a matrimonial dispute between Shashank C., an Indian citizen residing in the United States, and his wife, Monika C., who is also an Indian national. The couple married on 29.11.2023 at Hotel Amaravathi in Mandya, Karnataka, following an arranged marriage negotiated while both were in the USA. The marriage was preceded by an agreement that Monika’s family would provide dowry consisting of 1 kg of gold, 4 kg of silver, and Rs. 10 lakhs in cash. The wedding expenses, estimated at Rs. 2 crores, were borne entirely by the bride’s family.

Key Facts

• The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 3124 of 2025 is Shashank C., the husband, currently residing in Virginia, USA.
• The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 745 of 2025 are H.B. Chandramohan and M.S. Prabhamani, Shashank’s parents, residing in Bengaluru.
• The complainant is Monika C., the wife, residing in Mandya, Karnataka.
• The marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2023 in Mandya, Karnataka.
• Immediately after marriage, the complainant moved to the husband’s residence in Bengaluru, where within 1 - 2 days, the accused allegedly seized all her gold ornaments, silver articles, and Rs. 10 lakhs in cash.
• The complainant’s father purchased household items for the couple’s residence in the USA and incurred transfer expenses.
• From December 2023 to July 2024, while residing in the USA, the complainant alleges sustained physical and mental harassment by Shashank and his parents, including threats of divorce, verbal abuse, and physical assault.
• The complainant spent Rs. 40 - 50 lakhs on living expenses in the USA, including rent, car loan, groceries, and fuel.
• In June - July 2024, Shashank and his parents demanded an additional Rs. 5 crores from the complainant and her family, threatening to abandon her if not paid.
• The complainant lost her job in the USA due to the harassment and returned to India on 15.07.2024.
• On 12.07.2024, the complainant and her family met with the accused in Mandya to resolve the dispute. The accused allegedly abused her, accused her of cheating, and reiterated demands for Rs. 5 crores and more dowry.
• The accused refused to return any of the dowry items received.
• On 14.08.2024, the complainant filed a complaint with Mandya West Police Station.
• The police registered Crime No. 117 of 2024 on 23.08.2024.
• A charge sheet was filed on 12.07.2024 under Sections 85, 352, 351(2), 49, 115(2), 3(5) of BNSS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• A notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was sent via WhatsApp and Gmail to Shashank in the USA, but no response was received.
• The police also emailed the HR department of Shashank’s employer in the USA on 21.09.2024, but he remained non-cooperative, delaying his deportation.

Procedural History

• 29.11.2023: Marriage solemnized at Hotel Amaravathi, Mandya.
• December 2023 - July 2024: Alleged harassment and dowry demands in USA.
• 15.07.2024: Complainant returns to India.
• 14.08.2024: Complaint filed by complainant with Mandya West Police Station.
• 23.08.2024: FIR registered as Crime No. 117 of 2024.
• 12.07.2024: Charge sheet filed by police.
• 24.10.2024: Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, takes cognizance of offences under BNSS and Dowry Prohibition Act.
• 01.04.2026: Criminal Petitions No. 745 and 3124 of 2025 heard and reserved.
• 12.06.2026: Judgment pronounced by the Karnataka High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioners (Shashank and his parents):

• All alleged acts of harassment, threats, and abuse occurred in the USA.
• Section 208 of BNSS (successor to Section 188 CrPC) requires prior sanction of the Central Government for trial of offences committed abroad.
• The cognizance order lacks application of mind and is non-reasoned.
• The complaint is a colourable attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one.
• The complainant has a history of extramarital affairs, as evidenced by electronic communications and confession letters.

For the Respondents (State and Complainant):

• The dowry was delivered in India at the time of marriage.
• The seizure of dowry items occurred in Bengaluru immediately after marriage.
• The demand for additional dowry and threats were made in Mandya on 12.07.2024.
• The offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is complete upon demand, regardless of where the harassment occurred.
• The cognizance order, though brief, was based on a detailed charge sheet and sufficient material.
• Sanction under Section 208 is not required at the cognizance stage, only before trial.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, charge sheet, and all proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the proceedings were an abuse of process.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether offences under Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are triable in India when part of the offence - such as demand, seizure of dowry, or threat - is committed within Indian territory, and whether prior sanction of the Central Government is mandatory at the stage of cognizance.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The petitioners relied on Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India and Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh to argue that Section 208 BNSS requires prior Central Government sanction for any trial involving acts committed outside India. They contended that since all acts of harassment occurred in the USA, the entire proceedings were barred. They further argued that the cognizance order was mechanically passed without application of mind, citing Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand to assert that a non-reasoned order vitiated the proceedings. They submitted photographs, WhatsApp messages, and confession letters to prove the complainant’s false allegations and extramarital affairs.

For the Respondent/State

The State countered that the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is complete upon demand, and the demand was made in Mandya on 12.07.2024. The seizure of dowry occurred in Bengaluru, establishing territorial jurisdiction. The State relied on Thota Venkateswarlu and PraDEEP S. WODEYAR v. State of Karnataka to argue that sanction under Section 208 is not a precondition for cognizance, only for trial. The State emphasized that the charge sheet contained sufficient material to establish a prima facie case, and the cognizance order, though concise, was valid under Section 190(1)(b) BNSS, which permits cognizance on police reports without detailed reasoning.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which mirrors the former Section 188 CrPC. The Court observed that the provision permits trial in India for offences committed abroad by Indian citizens, but only with prior sanction of the Central Government. However, the Court emphasized that this sanction is not a condition precedent to taking cognizance, as held in Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India and reaffirmed in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

"The proviso to Section 208 is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of Section 208 is required till the commencement of the trial."

The Court further held that when part of the offence - such as the demand for dowry, seizure of property, or threat - is committed within Indian territory, the entire transaction is triable in India without requiring sanction. The Court noted that the complainant’s dowry was delivered in Mandya, the ornaments were seized in Bengaluru, and the final demand for Rs. 5 crores was made in Mandya on 12.07.2024. These acts, even if preceded by harassment abroad, constitute a continuing offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is complete upon demand.

The Court also rejected the argument that the cognizance order was non-reasoned. Citing PraDEEP S. WODEYAR v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that when cognizance is taken on a police report under Section 190(1)(b) BNSS, the Magistrate is not obligated to record detailed reasons. The Magistrate’s satisfaction may be inferred from the record, and the charge sheet, FIR, and witness statements were sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

"In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused."

The Court dismissed the petitioners’ submissions regarding the complainant’s alleged extramarital affairs as irrelevant at the quashment stage, noting that such evidence may be raised during trial but cannot be used to pre-emptively quash proceedings.

The Verdict

The petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the proceedings are maintainable under Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as part of the offence occurred within Indian territory. The cognizance order dated 24.10.2024 was upheld as valid, and no prior Central Government sanction was required at that stage. The interim orders, if any, stood dissolved. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the quashment petition under Section 528 BNSS and would not prejudice the trial. All pending applications were disposed of.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Extraterritorial Offences Are Triable If Part Occurs in India

• Practitioners must now argue that Section 208 BNSS does not bar prosecution if any ingredient of the offence - such as demand, threat, or seizure - is committed within India.
• In dowry cases, the demand for dowry in India is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, even if harassment occurred abroad.
• The continuing nature of dowry offences under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act allows prosecution based on acts occurring in India, regardless of where the initial abuse took place.

Sanction Under BNSS Section 208 Is Not Required at Cognizance

• Cognizance can be taken without prior Central Government sanction; sanction is mandatory only before trial begins.
• Courts must not quash proceedings merely because sanction has not been obtained at the cognizance stage.
• The charge sheet and police report are sufficient to satisfy the Magistrate’s requirement of applying mind, even without detailed reasoning.

Cognizance Orders Based on Police Reports Are Valid Even If Brief

• A concise cognizance order referencing the charge sheet and FIR is legally sufficient under Section 190(1)(b) BNSS.
• Petitioners cannot challenge cognizance on grounds of non-reasoning if the underlying police report contains prima facie evidence.
• Courts must distinguish between private complaints (requiring detailed scrutiny) and police reports (where the Magistrate benefits from investigative material).