Karnataka High Court
Mr Ashik Raveendran vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3475
CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4921 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
MR. ASHIK RAVEENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O. RAVEENDRAN VADAKETHIL
GANGADHARAN, PRESENTLY R/AT 8,
CONDIFFE PALACE, NEW WINDSOR,
AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND 0600,
INDIAN ADDRESS AT NARANGANAM
WEST P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA,
KOZHENCHERY, KERALA 689642
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
Digitally signed SOLADEVANAHALLI P S,
by PRASHANTH REP BY SPP,
NV
Location: High HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Court of BENGALURU - 560 001
Karnataka
2. MS. NIVEDITA RANJIT
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O. RANJIT KRISHNAN,
S.V PG, NO. 37, NEAR
ACHARYA GIRLS COTTAGES,
ACHIT NAGARA, SOLADEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 090
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R., HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SD.)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3475
CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.82/2016 REGISTERED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE I.E., ANNEXURE-A, CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.8396/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.J.M., BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU I.E., ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER
DATED 31.01.2017 PASSED BY THE C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU I.E. ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354A, 419, 504, 506, 509 OF IPC AND SECTION
66(E), 67(A) OF I.T. ACT AND QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.8396/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.J.M., BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner being the accused in C.C.No.8396/2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 419, 504, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 66(E), 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act').
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri. Siddharth Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rangaswamy R, learned HCGP for respondent. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the sole accused. He went to New Zealand on student visa during July 2015 and returned to India during 2019-2020 when he received intimation regarding issuance of warrant against him in the present case.
4. Learned counsel submitted that, according to respondent No.2 - informant, the incident had occurred from 28.10.2015 to 22.03.2016, when the petitioner was admittedly in New Zealand. The proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C bars any enquiry or trial in India of an offence committed outside India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Admittedly, when the petitioner was in New Zealand, committing the offences as alleged being Indian citizen, the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is squarely applicable. Even though the charge sheet is already filed by the Investigating Officer, there is no reference to such sanction obtained from the Central Government. The charge sheet discloses that the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR petitioner was in New Zealand and he was not available during investigation and only after completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the look out notice was issued. Under such circumstances, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance and summoned the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case, the first information produced as per Annexure-B is dated 22.03.2016 and the FIR came to be registered on the very same date. The informant/respondent No.2 has filed similar complaint dated 21.03.2016 before the Aranmula Police Station, Kerala alleging commission of offence under Section 66(B) of IT Act, 2000 and under Section 509 of IPC. Learned counsel referring to this document contends that the informant has never referred to the present complaint filed before Soladevanahalli Police Station, while filing the similar complaint before the Police Station at Kerala. In the present complaint, there is no reference to the complaint that was filed before the police station at Kerala. Even as per the first information in the present case, the father of respondent No.2 had filed another complaint with the police at New Zealand against the petitioner where he was studying. It is also stated -5- NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR by respondent No.2 that since New Zealand police have advised to submit a formal complaint with Soladevenahalli Police Station, this complaint came to be filed. Therefore, it is clear that the present complaint is filed formally and further there are multiple complaints regarding the same offence as alleged.
6. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samta Naidu and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1 to contend that if the core of both the complaints is same, the second complaint ought not to be entertained.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that the materials which are produced along with charge sheet by the Investigating Officer disclose that the petitioner was in India and his departure to New Zealand only during June, 2015. Again he arrived to Cochin on 28.11.2015 and subsequently his departure to New Zealand was on 07.02.2016. Therefore, the offences was committed in India and not in New Zealand. Therefore, the sanction as required 1 Crl.Apl.No.367-368/2020 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR under Section 188 of Cr.P.C is not necessary in the present case.
8. Learned HCGP submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner stating that on 26.12.2015 when the petitioner was admittedly in Cochin, he snatched the handbag of respondent No.2 with the cell-phone and ran away. He made use of contact details of respondent No.2 to commit the offence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present petition.
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR REASONS
10. As per the first information, various incidents have occurred from 28.10.2015 to 22.03.2016. In between, the petitioner had come to India for a short period. As per first information, the incident that had occurred in Cochin is on 26.12.2015, when respondent No.2 had met the petitioner. It is alleged that he snatched her hand bag along with cell-phone and ran away. He collected the contact details of her friends and relatives and made use of the same to commit the offences as alleged. In the first information itself, there is reference to the date of offence, IP address through which the offence was committed etc,. The first such offence sending text message was on 28.10.2015 when admittedly, the petitioner was in New Zealand. Thereafter, respondent No.2 changed her cell-phone, changed the password etc., and the next test massage was on 05.01.2016 and 06.01.2016.
11. The first information is silent as to where exactly the offence was committed. The first information refers to filing of the formal complaint with New Zealand Police which presupposes that the offence was committed in New Zealand. It -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR was only as per the directions of Police at New Zealand, a formal complaint was filed with Soladevanahalli Police Station. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had filed another compliant at Cochin making altogether different allegations. The complaint at Cochin and at Soladevanahalli Police Station are filed within a time gap of one or two days. There is no reference to filing of the complaint at Cochin in the compliant that is filed in Bengaluru and vice-versa.
12. Even though, a detailed investigation was held and the charge sheet came to be filed, column No.7 of the charge sheet do not make it clear as to where the offence was committed or atleast where the petitioner was residing when the offence was committed. However, the charge sheet discloses that the accused is the resident of New Zealand and he was not available for investigation. After completion of investigation, show cause notice was issued.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thota Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Principal Secretary -9- NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR and Another2 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held at paragraphs 14 and 15 as under:
"14. The language of Section 188 Cr.PC 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 hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal case [(1993) 3 SCC 609 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 961] , it was held that sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows: (SCC p. 628, para 29) "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."
15. Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal case [(1993) 3 SCC 609: 1993 SCC (Cri) 961] was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the 2 (2011) 9 SCC 527
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR 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 the 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 trial could commence."
14. Section 188 of Cr.P.C refers to the offences committed outside India and the proviso to this Section mandates getting the sanction from Central Government to inquire and try the criminal cases in India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Thota Venkateshwarlu (supra). Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., held that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed in India. The Court also held that the proviso indicates that such offence could be inquired into or
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR tried only after having obtained previous sanction of the Central Government and referring to its earlier decision in Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India3, held that the sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of the offence. It is required only at the stage of trial and not till the commencement of the trial. Thus it is made clear that such sanction could be obtained at the time of trial, but need not be obtained at the time investigation or at the time of taking cognizance.
15. Learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neralla Chairanjeevi Arun Kumar Vs. State of A.P.4 the decision of the Apex Court in Thota Venkateshwarlu (supra) was referred to and held that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. for offence committed by a citizen of India outside the Country is not required at the stage of taking cognizance. However, the trial of the criminal case cannot be commenced without sanction being accorded.
3 (1993) 3 SCC 609 4 (2021) SCC Online SC 3392
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR
16. Now it is stated that the Trial Court has posted the matter for framing charges. But admittedly, no sanction was sought for. The contention of learned HCGP that the offence in question was committed in India do not get support by any other documents including the charge sheet except a stray sentence found in the first information regarding the incident that had occurred on 26.12.2015, when the petitioner is said to have snatched the handbag of respondent No.2 along with the cell-phone and collected the contact details to commit the offence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was at Cochin at that time and the same is not seriously disputed by learned HCGP. If that is the case, why the complaint came to be filed at Soladevanahalli Police Station is not explained by the learned HCGP, which assumes importance. Moreover, the first information makes it clear that only a formal complaint is filed with Soladevanahalli Police Station.
17. The materials on record disclose that respondent No.2 has filed multiple complaints, atleast three complaints, one at Cochin, the other at Soladevanahalli Police Station at Bengaluru and another at New Zealand. Inspite of that,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR narration of the incident that had occurred differs from one complaint to another. Even in the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer is not sure as to where the accused has committed the offence and whether respondent No.2 or her friends or her relatives have received such messages to constitute the offence. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be sustained and such initiation of proceedings is an abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served by prosecuting him. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal case registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused in CC.No.8396/2016 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 419, 504, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3475 CRL.P No. 4921 of 2020 HC-KAR under Sections 66(E), 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE PNV/KA CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6