16-6-2024
The Court explained that under Section 188 of the CrPC, prior sanction from the Central Government is necessary to prosecute offences in India if they are committed entirely outside India.
The Kerala High Court recently held that criminal proceedings under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (which punishes marital
cruelty to women) initiated against a man residing in Australia
could not proceed in India without prior sanction from the Central
Government.
Justice A Badharudeen explained that Section 188 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) lays down that when it comes to offences
committed outside India, prior sanction from the Central Government
is required to prosecute the case in India.
The Court added that if a part of such an offence had taken place in
India, no such sanction would have been required to prosecute the
accused in India.
However, in this case, the Court found that all the alleged actions
tied to the criminal case were said to have taken place in
Australia.
Therefore, the Court concluded that prosecution in India in relation
to this case was invalid in the absence of prior Central Government
sanction.
"The entire allegations, which would attract offences under Section
498A of IPC alleged to be committed by the 1st accused is outside
India, and the matter definitely would come with the ambit of
Section 188 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present proceedings without
obtaining prior sanction as contemplated under Section 188 Cr.P.C.
is vitiated," the Court held.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a man accused of
cruelty by his wife.
The alleged acts of cruelty occurred in Australia when the couple
resided there. The wife later filed a case against the husband in
India.
The accused husband (petitioner) challenged the registration of this
criminal case by filing a petition before the High Court.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the criminal case initiated
against him in India, for acts that allegedly took place in
Australia, was invalid because sanction under Section 188, CrPC was
not obtained.
Section 188 of the CrPC stipulates that offences committed outside
India by Indian citizens or on Indian-registered vessels require
prior sanction from the Central Government before they can be tried
in Indian courts.
Meanwhile, the prosecution argued that although some of the acts of
cruelty took place in Australia, there was an incident where the
accused threatened the complainant (wife) through a telephone call
while she was in India. The petition to quash the case was also
opposed by the complainant's counsel.
In its analysis, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in
Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand and noted that sanction from the
Central Government would not have been required if even a part of
the offence had taken place in India. However, it concluded that in
the present case, since all the alleged acts happened in Australia,
sanction was necessary.
It ruled that the case fell under the ambit of Section 188, CrPC and
allowed the plea to quash the criminal case registered in India
against the petitioner.
The Court, however, directed the trial court to proceed with the
criminal case against the petitioner's relative (an accused in the
same case) in India.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Thomas J Anakkallunkal,
Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Jayaraman S and Litty Peter.
Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George appeared for the State.
The complainant was represented by advocate Luke J Chirayil.