Kerala High Court: In a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’), the petitioner sought to quash a complaint alleging offences under Section 498-A of the Penal Code (IPC) committed in Australia. A. Badharudeen, J., held that, for an offence committed outside India, the proviso to Section 188 of the CrPC requires prior sanction from the Central Government, and therefore prosecution against such person would stand vitiated.
Background
The petitioner was accused of committing offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the alleged offences occurred while the respondent resided with him in Australia, and therefore, the prosecution was invalid due to lack of sanction. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the complaint.
The respondent contended that despite the acts being committed in Australia, there was an allegation of a threat made by the petitioner via a telephone call to the respondent while she was in India.
Decision and Analysis
Upon reviewing the submissions from both parties, the Court examined Section 188 of the CrPC, which pertains to offences committed outside India. The Court reiterated that Section 188 CrPC provides that when an offence is committed outside India by an Indian citizen or by a non-citizen on an Indian ship or aircraft, the offender can be prosecuted in India as if the offence was committed within India. However, the proviso to Section 188 requires that no such offence shall be investigated or tried in India without the prior sanction of the Central Government.
The Court referred to Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2022) 13 SCC 136, wherein it was held that if an offence were not committed entirely outside India, the proviso to Section 188 CrPC would not apply, and thus no sanction would be necessary.
The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 188 CrPC applies when an offence is committed outside India by an Indian citizen or a person on an Indian ship or aircraft, necessitating prior sanction from the Central Government. However, if any part of the offence or even one instance of the overt act is committed in India, the sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not required.
In the present case, the Court said that the allegations under Section 498A IPC were entirely based on acts committed by the petitioner outside India. Therefore, the case fell within the ambit of Section 188 CrPC, requiring prior sanction, which was not obtained. Consequently, the Court quashed the complaint against the petitioner and directed the Magistrate to proceed against the second accused person.
[X v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2903, Order dated 06-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for the petitioner: Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Jayaraman S., Litty Peter
Advocate for the respondent: Public Prosecutor, Renjit George, Senior Public Prosecutor, Luke J. Chirayil
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
