Back
2011 (6) Supreme 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Thota Venkateswarlu — Petitioner
versus
State of A.P. Tr. Princl. Sec. & Anr. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7640 of 2008
Decided on : 2-9-2011
Facts of the Case :
Petitioner herein in the instant case married Respondent No.2 as per Hindu rites in Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner left India for Botswana and later on Respondent 2 went to Botswana to join Petitioner. Case of Respondent 2 that While in Botswana, she was alleged to have been severely ill-treated by Petitioner and various demands were also made including a demand for additional dowry of 5 lakhs. Respondent 2 addressed a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Andhra Pradesh, from Botswana and the same was registered as Case under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. An Order was passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of said case. Petition thereagainst for quashment of said proceedings was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present Special Leave Petition has been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of petitioner that in view of proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence committed outside India, same could not be proceeded with without previous sanction of Central Government.
Findings of the Court :
The Court Held that upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, trial cannot proceed beyond cognizance stage without previous sanction of Central Government. No reason was found to interfere with High Court’s decision to reject petitioner’s prayer for quashing of proceedings .It was further held that Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed outside India, Magistrate not to proceed with the trial without sanction of Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. Special Leave Petition was disposed of
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Sanction under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is not a precondition for taking cognizance of an offence but is required before the trial begins if the offence was committed outside India by an Indian citizen (!) (!) .
The stage of taking cognizance does not require prior sanction from the Central Government; however, the trial cannot proceed beyond this stage without such sanction in cases involving offences committed outside India (!) .
For offences committed within India, the Court can proceed with the trial without obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government (!) .
The provisions of the Indian Penal Code extend to offences committed by Indian citizens both within and outside India, but the limitations imposed by Section 188 Cr.P.C. regarding sanctions must be observed (!) .
The Court emphasized that in cases involving multiple offences, some committed within and some outside India, proceedings can be initiated for offences within Indian jurisdiction without sanctions, but offences outside India require prior sanction before trial (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that sanctions are necessary only before the trial begins, not at the stage of cognizance, and that the Magistrate may proceed with the trial for offences committed within India without additional sanctions (!) .
The Court disposed of the special leave petition by affirming that proceedings related to offences committed outside India should not proceed without the requisite sanction from the Central Government (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or clarification on any specific aspect.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2008, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008 dismissing the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 pending before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki. This case raises certain interesting questions of law and to appreciate the same, some of the facts are required to be reproduced.
2. The Petitioner, Thota Venkateswarlu, was married to the Respondent No.2, Parvathareddy Suneetha, on 27th November, 2005, as per Hindu traditions and customs in the Sitharama Police Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. At the time of marriage 12 lakhs in cash, 45 sovereigns of gold and 50,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam is alleged to have been given to the Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the husband, the mother-in-law and other relatives of the husband. According to the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner left India for Botswana in January 2006 without taking her along with him. However, in February, 2006, the Respondent No.2 went to Botswana to join the Petitioner. While in Botswana, the Respondent No.2 is alleged to have been severely ill-treated by the Petitioner and apart from the above, various demands were also made including a demand for additional dowry of 5 lakhs. On account of such physical and mental torture not only by the Petitioner/husband, but also by his immediate relatives, who continued to demand additional dowry by way of phone calls from India, the Respondent No.2 addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, from Botswana and the same was registered as Case (Crl.) No.25 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 506 Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’ for short) together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986, by the Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. Upon investigation into the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2, the Inspector of Police, Medarametla, filed a charge-sheet in CC No.307 of 2007 in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District, under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioner and his father, mother and sister, who were named as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid case and by his order dated 19th February, 2007, ordered issuance of summons against the accused.
3. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was questioned by the Petitioner and the other co-accused before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3629 and 2746 of 2008 respectively and a prayer was made for quashing of the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court by its order dated 27th August, 2008, allowed Criminal Petition No.2746 of 2008 filed by the Accused Nos.2 to 4 and quashed the proceedings against them. However, Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed. The present Special Leave Petition is directed against the said order of the High Court rejecting the Petitioner’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and declining to quash Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 initiated against him.
4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner before this Court have raised certain important questions which warrant the attention of this Court.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as will appear from the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh on 22nd March, 2007, no grounds had been made out therein to continue with the proceedings in India, having regard to the provisions of Section 188
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
