Karnataka High Court
Heena Vijay Mehta vs The State Of Karnataka High Grounds on 20 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2493 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9538 OF 2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2493 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
HEENA VIJAY MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O VIJAY MEHTA,
R/AT 1003/1103,
HIRISHIKESH APARTMENT
874, VEERSAVARKAR MARG,
MUMBAI-400028
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
2. NIDHI SHAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
W/O MR MIRAJ MEHTA,
R/AT NO.505,GUL BAHAR APARTMENTS,
2
NO.10, HARE RAM HARE KRISHNA ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: D.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.9019/2014 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.341/2013 LODGED IN HIGH GROUNDS P.S. AND
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ACMM, BANGALORE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9538 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MR MIRAJ MEHTA
S/O MR.VIJAY MEHTA,
AGE 34 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF USA,
HAVING HIS ADDRESS AT 12618,
BRIKELLIA STREET, SAN-DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA-62129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI.VIJAY MEHTA,
S/O SRI VANDRAVANDAS MEHTA,
AGED 59 YEARS,
R/AT 1003, HRISHIKESH APARTMENTS, 874,
VEER SAVARKAR MARG,
PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400028 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE)
3
AND
1. THE STATE BY
HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. MRS. NIDHI SHAH
W/O MIRAJ MEHTA,
AGED 34 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF USA,
PERMANENT RESIDING AT 12618,
BRICKELLIA STREET, SAN DIEGO CA, 92129
AND TEMPORARY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.505,
'GUL BAHAR APARTMENT',
NO.10, HAREKRISHNA ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI:D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 22.01.2014
AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.9019/2014
(CR.NO.341/2013) PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
-------
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
These two petitions are filed under Section 482 seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.341/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 (complainant) and learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1- State.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute the offences under Sections 498A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The instance alleged in the charge sheet even if assumed as true, the same having taken place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Courts, prosecution of the petitioners is hit by Section 188 of Cr.P.C. and hence the 5 prosecution pending against the petitioner being an abuse of the process of Court is liable to be quashed.
4. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant submitted that there are specific and clear allegations in the complaint to the effect that from day one of the marriage, respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment in the matrimonial home. There are clear allegations of demand for dowry at the matrimonial home and therefore no sanction as contemplated under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is called for. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu - vs - State of A.P. TR. Principal Secretary And Another in Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.7640/2008.
5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.2 has also argued in line with the counsel for respondent No.2 and sought for dismissal of the petitions.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records. Charge sheet is laid under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code 6 and 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. The material allegations levelled against the petitioners are that after performance of marriage, petitioners subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty and harassment in the matrimonial home and demanded Rs.25,00,000/- dowry from the parents of respondent No.2.
7. A reading of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 at the earliest instance indicates that at the time of marriage, respondent No.2 was residing in U.S. since 2001. They entered into a registered marriage in U.S. on 14.08.2009. Further, averment made in the complaint read as under :-
"After the marriage, myself and my husband stayed at my parents house for 10 days and another 10 days at my husband house in Mumbai (at 1003/1103 Hrishikesh Apartments, 874, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028) along with my mother-in-law, Heena Vijay Mehta, Father- in-law, Vijay Mehta and other family members. After that myself and my husband, Miraj left for USA and stayed at 12618, Brickellia Street, San Diego, CA, 92129 USA."
It is further stated that :
7
"From the day one of our marriage my
husband Miraj and mother-in-law, Heena Vijay
Mehta have been torturing me mentally and
constantly making me hear "What you brought from your parents house?". They were constantly insulting me that my parents did not do enough for the wedding whereas all cost of the wedding was paid by my parents alone including hosting 150 people from their side."
These averments therefore make it clear that after marriage, respondent No.2 lived in her parents house for about 10 days. Under the said circumstance, the allegation in the complaint that from day one of her marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioners appears to be highly improbable and unbelievable.
8. Even assuming that there was such harassment to respondent No.2 in her parents house, nothing prevented her from taking action against the petitioner as she was staying in her parents house. Records indicate that complaint is lodged on 5.12.2013, i.e. more than four years after the date of marriage. 8 In the interregnum all the while respondent No.2 was residing in U.S.
9. Though there are allegations in the complaint that the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 used to abuse her over phone, the said incident also has taken place when respondent No.2 was staying in U.S. Therefore, all the instances of the alleged cruelty or dowry demand having taken place beyond the limits of Indian courts, in view Section 188 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the above offences without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
10. Section 188 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
"188. Offence committed outside India.- When an offence is committed outside India-
a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or else where ;or
b) by a person, not being such citizen, or any ship or aircraft registered in India he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found.9
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of Central Government."
11. Dealing with the scope and amplitude of the said Section in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu - vs - State of A.P. TR. Principal Secretary And Another in Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.7640/2008, it has been observed as under :-
"10. The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned hereinabove, in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins.10
Even in his concurring judgement, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows:-
" 29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one - commission of an offence; second - by an Indian citizen; and third - that it should have been committed outside the country."
Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, 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 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be required before the trail could commence.
11
11. Accordingly, upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required." (underlining supplied)
12. The above proposition makes it amply clear that when the offences have taken place outside the limits of Indian courts, the learned Magistrate is debarred from proceeding with the trial without prior sanction of the Central Government as prescribed in Section 188 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the prosecution pending against the petitioners being opposed to the provisions of law, are liable to be quashed on this ground.
12
13. Furthermore looking into charge sheet, I do not find any material therein prima facie constituting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act warranting prosecution of the petitioners. Except making bald and general allegations that from day one of her marriage, respondent No.2 was harassed by the petitioners, no specific instances of alleged cruelty or dowry demand has been specified. No corroborating material is produced in support of those accusations. The allegations appears to have been made out of spite and personal vengeance, apparently to settle score with her husband with whom she has serious matrimonial differences.
14. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners, being contrary to Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed.
In the result, petitions are allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.9019/2014 dated 22.01.2014 are quashed.
13
Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners after complying with the requirements of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs