Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have now filed the present quash petitions stating that the complaint by the de facto complainant could not have been filed through her GPA holder, but the police, without verifying the same and in a mechanical manner, entertained the said complaint and registered the case and have even filed the charge sheet thereafter, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. It is submitted that from the incident of marriage to the alleged incidents of consuming alcohol and beating the de facto complainant and alleged demands of additional dowry have all allegedly taken place in USA and therefore, no incidents have taken place in India, on the basis of which the complaint lodged at Hyderabad can be entertained against the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that though, in the charge sheet it was referred that on 21.03.2020, the accused abused respondent No.2 at Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022 Hyderabad, at no point of time has the respondent No.2 submitted any complaint to the police or to the elders with regard to the alleged incident. It is submitted that it is after 21 months of the said incident that respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint at Hyderabad and therefore, there is abnormal delay in submitting the report to the police which itself shows falsity of the complaint. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint with bald and baseless allegations without any reference to any specific overt acts and for this reason also, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that when the allegations against the petitioners do not constitute the offences as alleged against the petitioners, continuation of the proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that since January, 2021 respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were living separately and therefore, the question of accused No.1, abusing her does not arise and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners herein on the strength of such baseless allegations are liable to be quashed. It is submitted that for the de facto complainant, this is the third marriage and for accused No.1, it is the second marriage and the earlier marriage of the de facto complainant had also ended in a complaint filed by her Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022 against the husband alleging the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 498A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the said marriage was dissolved in USA through Court decree and therefore, it is clear that the de facto complainant is a habitual litigant and is in the habit of filing false cases against her husband and in-laws. Even with regard to the alleged sole incident in India, it was only with regard to the accusation of the extra marital affair of accused No.1 and was not in any way related to the alleged harassment for additional dowry and therefore, it does not constitute the offence as alleged. It is further submitted that accused No.1 has filed a divorce case against the de facto complainant in USA and as a counter blast case, respondent No.2 has filed the present case in India. It is submitted that under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., where an offence involving an Indian citizen is committed outside India, the trial should not be proceeded with without the previous sanction of the Central Government. It is submitted that in this case, no such sanction has been obtained by the police and hence the case proceedings have to be quashed.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the legal ground raised in these quash petitions is that previous sanction of the Central Government has to be obtained before proceeding with the trial of the subject case in India under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., and for failure to do so, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Therefore, in order to ascertain the legal position, it is necessary to reproduce the said provision as under:

"188. Offence committed outside India: When an offence is committed outside India:

8. In the case of Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another (4 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the Proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., where an offence is committed outside India by an Indian Citizen up to the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, but the trial cannot be proceeded with beyond cognizance stage without such previous sanction from the Central Government. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in respect of offences committed in India, the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offence alleged to have been committed in India but shall not proceed with the Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022 trial in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed outside India without prior sanction of Central Government as envisaged in the Proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C.

12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also relied upon the very same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another (4 supra) to submit that even if one incident has occurred in India, there was no requirement to take previous sanction from the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., for trial of all the other incidents outside India. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while analysing the provisions of Section 188 of Cr.P.C., has held that the Section gets attracted only when the entirety of offence is committed outside India and previous sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into and tried in India and where a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going with normal principle, the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian Courts and since the offence was not committed in its entirety outside India, the matter would not come within the scope Crl.P.Nos.6110 & 6074 of 2022 of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the Proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C.