Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The Impugned Order dated 20.10.2016 suffers from patent illegality and the summoning Order is contrary to law. Reliance is placed on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.

24. It is further contended that the Court of Ld. MM had no jurisdiction to take the cognizance in the present case. No part of the offence alleged, was committed within the local area of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Merely because of vague averments that the money was laundered, would not confirm any jurisdiction on this Court. The alleged offence was commissioned outside India and would be governed by Section 188 Cr.P.C.

34. The first preliminary objection taken by the Petitioners is in regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Ld. MM, in terms of Section 188 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

Section 188: Offence committed outside India - When an offence is committed outside India--

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or by a person, not being such citizen, on 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; 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 the Central Government.

37. Therefore, it is a settled position of law that the Section 188 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable where part of the cause of action has arisen within India.

38. In the present case, the averments made by the Complainant were that he was residing in UAE and was doing business but because of the conviction, he was deported and he came to India in the year 2007 while executing a Power of Attorney in favour of Simardeep Singh, to continue management of his businesses. He has further asserted that he had given blank cheques and from time to time till 2012, he was being made to sign the blank cheques within India which were handed over to Simardeep Singh and other Accused in Sharjah.

39. It is quite evident that prima facie at this stage, that part of the commission of the offence was committed in India where Complainant committed certain acts of signing blank cheques, etc., which are being misused allegedly in Sharjah, UAE. It is not a case which comes squarely under Section 188 Cr.P.C. as part of the offence has been committed in India. Therefore, it cannot be said that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction or that Section 188 Cr.P.C. is applicable.