@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Devadass, J.@mdashPetitioner, who is A-1 in the calendar case in C.C. No. 1694 of 2012 pending on the file of learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, came forward with this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings in the said case. On 05.04.2010, in Bangalore, Poonam (second respondent/defacto complainant) married Muralikrishna (petitioner/A-1), who is son of Hari Rao (A-2) and Shashikala (A-3). A-1''s sister Lakshmi Subhashini (A-5) married Rupesh (A-4). A-4''s close relative Balaji Rao arranged the marriage of second respondent with A-1. A-1 is working in USA. A-4 and A-5 are also living in USA.
2. Immediately after their marriage the second respondent and A-1 spend their days in A-1''s house at No. 5, Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. The second respondent discontinued her MBA studies. On 14.05.2010, second respondent went along with her husband to USA. On 05.12.2010, second respondent returned to her parents house in Bangalore. On 18.03.2011, she was sent back to USA to join her husband. Again, on 23.07.2011, on the ticket purchased by her father, second respondent returned to her parents'' house. On 14.09.2011, second respondent lodged complaint as against A-1 to A-5 alleging that they have tortured her for more dowry and have also taken away her shridhana articles consisting of gold jewellery and many household articles. The first respondent, namely, the Sub Inspector of Police, W-23, All Women Police Station, Royapettah, Chennai registered a case in crime No. 6 of 2011 for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. A-2 to A-5 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
3. Concluding his investigation, the second respondent filed the final report before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai showing A-1 as an absconding accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 1694 of 2012 for offences u/s 498-A and 406 of IPC as against A-1 to A-5. On 10.01.2013, in Crl. O.P. No. 15524 of 2012, this Court quashed the proceedings as against A-4 and A-5. Now, the case is pending as against A-1 and his parents, namely, A-2 and A-3. A-1 alone came forward to this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings as against him raising certain grounds.
4. Mr. A. Raghunathan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the offences alleged as against the petitioner. There is no details as to when, where the demand of dowry was made. So also the Shridhana articles were entrusted. Further, there is no allegation that A-1 demanded dowry and due to the failure to satisfy it, she has been harassed by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the essential ingredient for the offence of cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498-A of IPC is lacking in this case. Thus, the trial as against the petitioner A-1 may not go.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the dowry demand and the torture were alleged to have been taken place in USA. In such circumstances, as per the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., previous sanction of the Central Government is necessary to try the offence u/s 498-A IPC alleged as against the petitioner. In this case, as on date, no such sanction was obtained. So with respect to the said offence as against A-1, now the trial could not be conducted.
6. In support of his said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel cited the following decisions:-
(i)
(ii) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. P. No. 2976 of 2009 and 4921 of 2010, dated 01.03.2011 (Rajesh Gutta Vs. State of A.P., and Others);
(iii)
7. On the other hand, Mr. P. Haridas, the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent contended that the second respondent has been harassed by the petitioner as well as her in-laws for dowry and they have also committed criminal breach of trust. Her complaint and the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. would show a prima facie case of dowry torture and criminal breach of trust. Petitioner had harassed his wife continuously. He harassed her in India as well as in USA. Part of the crime has been committed in Chennai and it was continued in USA also. In such circumstances, the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable. In such circumstances, no previous sanction of the Central Government is necessary to conduct the trial as against the petitioner.
8. In support of his said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel cited the following decisions:-
(i)
(ii)
Thus, the trial against the petitioner /A-1 may go.
9. Mr. C. Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent read the allegations in the complaint and also the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. He had reiterated the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent. He had also submitted that the matrimonial offence is a continuous offence and part of the crime has been committed in India, so, there is no need to obtain previous sanction of the Central Government to try the petitioner for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC. He would submit that there is no impediment to conduct the trial as against the petitioner.
10. I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsels, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, perused the counter filed by the first respondent and the counter filed by the second respondent and the materials available on record and the decisions cited at the bar.
11. Regarding quashment of criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. it is useful here to note the following guidelines laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in its land mark Judgment in
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spire him due to private and personal grudge.
12. Thus, when the materials disclose a prima facie case of commission of cognizable offences, a criminal prosecution cannot be quashed. At its nascent stage, a criminal prosecution cannot be stifled unless there is no prima facie case at all.
13. In this case, the petitioner (A1) and the second respondent (defacto complainant) are spouses. They were married on 05.04.2010 in Bangalore. They have no issues, but have issues. The bride belongs to Bangalore and the bridegroom belongs to Royapettah in Chennai. He is a foreign (USA) employed bridegroom. Admittedly, after the marriage, the second respondent went to her husband''s home at No. 5, Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14. Till 14.05.2010, the couples were together in Chennai and she was in the company of her husband and her in-laws. This is first part of her matrimonial life in Chennai.
14. The second part of her matrimonial life took place in USA. On 14.05.2010, she went to U.S.A. along with her husband. On 05.12.2010, she alone came back to her parent''s house in Bangalore. Again, on 18.03.2011, she was sent back to USA to join her husband and ultimately, on 23.07.2011, she had returned to her parents house in Bangalore once for all. Thereafter, on 14.09.2011, she lodged the complaint. The second part of her matrimonial life, which started from 14.05.2010 lasted till 23.07.2011 in U.S.A. with an interregnum of a period from 05.12.2010 to 18.03.2011.
15. In her complaint, in para 8, the second respondent had alleged that right from day one of her marriage, she has been harassed and tortured for dowry. The complaint is to set the criminal law in motion. Based on the complaint, FIR has been registered u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. It is not be and end of all. F.I.R. cannot be an encyclopaedia of the entire case. The allegations in the complaint shall disclose commission of cognizable offences. But, F.I.R., need not contain the details of the evidence. It must contain the base case and not the entire case details.
16. Now, in this case, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the second respondent, her sister, their father, their uncle Balaji Rao, who arranged this marriage. Matrimonial violence/offences are mostly committed within the four walls of the house, more particularly, in the matrimonial home. Mostly the sole witness will be the very victim herself.
17. The second respondent in her statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. in elaborating the harassment to which she was subjected to in the matrimonial home from day one of her marriage, she has stated that her husband has demanded a dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs to defray his expenses relating to stitching of a suit and buying of a wrist watch in USA and ultimately the deal was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- and keeping this in his mind, he had tortured her, insulted her, threatened her, prevented her from talking to her father even over phone. She had also stated that her husband insisted paying him Rs. 1 lakh as a condition to take her to her home. She had also stated that to achieve his dowry demand, he has abused her in filthy language, teased her and also mentally tortured her. This is the first part of her matrimonial life till 14.05.2010 in her husband''s house in Royapettah, Chennai. Her complaint shows that the torture continued in USA also. She had stated that in USA also petitioner had demanded dowry and also strangulated her.
18. In the complaint, entrustment of the articles have been alleged. There are prima facie materials that dowry has been demanded and since it was not satisfied, she has been harassed. She has been tortured in India as well as in USA. Thus, there is prima facie case as against the petitioner for the offences alleged as against him.
19. The other submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relates to extra-territorial operation of the Indian Penal Code.
20. The general penal of India is contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A Sovereign/State has the power to punish its citizens and others, when they commits offences in the territory, over which it exercise jurisdiction/sovereignty. This principle has been incorporated in Section 2 of IPC. This is intra-territorial operation of the Penal Law of India. Section 2 of IPC speaks about territorial operation/jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code. But, by express provision, the legislature may provide for punishing citizens of the country committing crimes as defined in its penal law (Municipal Law) even beyond its territory, in other words, outside the country. This is extra-territorial operation of the penal law. This has been provided in Sections 3 and 4 of IPC.
21. Section 3 of IPC runs as under:-
3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India
Any person liable, by any (Indian law) to be tried for an offence committed beyond (India) shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond (India) in the same manner as if such act had been committed within [India].
22. Section 4 of IPC runs as under:-
4. Extension of Code to extra territorial offences. - the provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by-
(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;
(2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.
Explanation:- In this section, the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code.
23. As per Section 3 of IPC, if a person commits offences as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code beyond India, he could be tried in India wherever he is found. Thus, the Indian Penal Code has extra-territorial operation over its citizens. Elaborating this, Section 4 specifies certain circumstances under which the extra-territorial operation of the Indian Penal Code can be enforced. The extra-territorial operation of the Indian Penal Code relates to land, air and sea.
24. Sections 3 and 4 are substantive part of the law. The accused, who has so committed offence outside India may voluntarily comes to India or he might be extradited to India as per the law relating to extradition, or treaty our country has with other countries.
25. Chapter XIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in conducting inquiries and trials. It deals with venue where the offences are to be inquired into or tried. So far as the offences committed outside India, a procedure has been prescribed in Section 188 of Cr.P.C. It laid down the procedural law relating to the substantive law in Sections 3 and 4 of IPC.
26. Section 188 of Cr.P.C., runs 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 elsewhere; or
(b) 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.
(emphasis supplied)
27. The procedural law incorporated in Section 188 of Cr.P.C. regarding extra-territorial operation of the Indian Penal Code through its proviso stipulates that to try the said offences previous sanction of the Central Government is required. Thus, such sanction is condition precedent to conduct the trial with respect to offences committed outside India.
28. In
29. In
30. In Rajesh Gutta (supra), the offence has been committed outside India, it was taken cognizance by a Magistrate in Hyderabad and the case was pending before the learned Magistrate. Since no previous sanction u/s 188 Cr.P.C. was obtained from the Central Government, the prosecution was challenged before the High Court. In the circumstances, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the cognizance taken is bad in law.
31. With due respect to the learned Judge in view of the clear cut language employed in the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., with regard to extra-territorial offences, there is no prohibition for taking cognizance. The requirement for obtaining previous sanction of the Central Government arises only for conducting the trial.
32. In his article, "Venue and the Ambit of Criminal Law" (1965) (L.Q.R. 518 at 528) Prof. Glanville Williams wrote as under:-
Sometimes the problem of determining the place of the crime is assisted by the doctrine of the continuing crime. Some crimes are regarded as being of a continuing nature, and they may accordingly be prosecuted in any jurisdiction in which they are partly committed the partial commission being, in the eye of the law, a total commission.
33. In Halsbury''s Law of England, (3rd Edition), Vol. 10, page 327, at para 602 it is stated as under:-
A criminal enterprise may consist of continuing act which is done in more places than one or of a series of acts which are done in several places. In such cases, though there is one criminal enterprise, there may be several crimes, and a crime is committed in each place where a complete criminal act is performed although the act may be only a part of the enterprise.
34. In
35. In
This Court held as under:-
12. As I have already discussed the husband started committing the offence immediately after the marriage on the same day evening and it continued till her return to India. Since it is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and further both the persons are Indians, there is no need for any previous sanction as provided u/s 188 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view that the present complaint is maintainable in law. It does not require any sanction since it is a day to day domestic quarrel.
36. Thus what follows from the above is that in case if it is a continuing offence and such an offence is committed in India and in furtherance of that, further offence also has been committed in a foreign country, before trying the offence, previous sanction of the Central Government is not necessary.
37. Now, we revert back to our case. We have already seen that the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent took place in Bangalore on 05.04.2010. She lived with the petitioner in Chennai in the matrimonial home till 14.05.2010. We have already seen that there is prima facie case of dowry torture by the petitioner of his wife during the said period. During the said period, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence u/s 498-A of IPC. Thereafter, the complainant went to USA along with her husband and she lived there till 23.07.2011 excepting the period from 05.12.2010 to 18.03.2011. During such period also, there are allegations that the petitioner continued to torture her, as a consequence of not fulfilling the dowry demand. Thus, the offence u/s 498-A of IPC has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in India and also in USA. Part of the crime has been committed in India.
38. In such circumstances, the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., requiring previous sanction of the Central Government to conduct the trial in respect of the offence u/s 498-A as against the petitioner will not arise. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no previous sanction of the Central Government is required. In view of the foregoings, this Criminal Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. The learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is directed to proceed with the trial of the calendar case in C.C. No. 1694 of 2012 as against the petitioner and his parents. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
