Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.379 of 2020
Decided On : 03-03-2021
CRIMINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 377, 498-A IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - SECTION 377 IPC STRUCK DOWN - NO MAINTAINABLE PROSECUTION - SECTION 498-A IPC - ALLEGED HARASSMENT IN AMERICA AND INDIA - JURISDICTION - SECTION 188 CR.P.C. - NO BAR TO REGISTRATION OF FIR AND INVESTIGATION - SECTION 3 IPC - PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED BEYOND INDIA - SECTION 4 IPC - PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENCES COMMITTED BY CITIZENS OF INDIA IN ANY PLACE WITHIN AND BEYOND INDIA - SECTION 179 CR.P.C. - OFFENCE TRIABLE WHERE ACT IS DONE OR CONSEQUENCE ENSUES - CONSEQUENCES OF HARASSMENT SUFFERED IN INDIA - SECTION 498-A IPC - DEFINITION OF "CRUELTY" - WILFUL CONDUCT LIKELY TO DRIVE WOMAN TO COMMIT SUICIDE OR CAUSE INJURY TO LIFE, LIMB OR HEALTH - UNNATURAL SEX - OFFENSIVELY UNJUST CONDUCT - MENTAL OR PHYSICAL HEALTH - FIR QUASHED FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 377 IPC - REGISTRATION OF FIR FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 498-A IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT FOUND VALID - INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, accused No.1 in a case registered for offences under Sections 377, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sought quashing of the FIR. The petitioner's wife, the de facto complainant, alleged physical and mental harassment by the petitioner in America and India. The petitioner contended that the prosecution for the offence under Section 377 IPC was not maintainable as it was struck down by the Supreme Court, and that the alleged harassment in America could not be registered as a case in India under Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the prosecution for the offence under Section 377 IPC was not maintainable as it was struck down by the Supreme Court. However, the Court found that the registration of the FIR for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was valid as the alleged harassment took place both in America and India, and the consequences of the harassment were suffered by the de facto complainant in India. The Court also held that Section 188 Cr.P.C. did not bar the registration of the FIR and investigation of the case, as it only imposed a bar on the trial of the case without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution for the offence under Section 377 IPC was maintainable after it was struck down by the Supreme Court? 2. Whether the FIR for the offence under Section 498-A IPC could be registered in India for alleged harassment that took place in America? 3. Whether Section 188 Cr.P.C. barred the registration of the FIR and investigation of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution for the offence under Section 377 IPC was not maintainable as it was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court relied on the judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 IPC. 2. The Court held that the registration of the FIR for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was valid as the alleged harassment took place both in America and India, and the consequences of the harassment were suffered by the de facto complainant in India. The Court relied on Section 3 and Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code, which provide that 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 the Indian Penal Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India. The Court also relied on Section 179 Cr.P.C., which provides that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 3. The Court held that Section 188 Cr.P.C. did not bar the registration of the FIR and investigation of the case, as it only imposed a bar on the trial of the case without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Court relied on the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C., which states that no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the Criminal Petition, quashing the FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. The Court dismissed the Criminal Petition in respect of the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, finding the registration of the FIR to be valid and ordering the investigation to continue.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking quash of F.I.R. in Crime No.54 of 2016 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant.
3. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.54 of 2016 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. He is the husband of the 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant. The 2nd respondent lodged a report with the Police alleging that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 04.06.2014 in Vijayawada. Thereafter, they both lived together for a period of 15 days and after 15 days, they left for America and they led happy conjugal life for a period of 2 months in America. Whileso, she got pregnancy. Thereafter, the petitioner and his parents and the sister of the petitioner by name Sahithi harassed her both physically and mentally. Some wild allegations viz the petitioner resorted to unnatural sex with the de facto complainant by forcing her to participate in such unnatural sex are also made in the report lodged by her with the police. It is stated that after harassing the de facto complainant physically and mentally, the petitioner brought her to India and left her at her parents’ house and went away. The said report was registered by the police as a case in the above crime for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case is under investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Apex Court has struck down Section 377 IPC. Therefore, the present criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. As regards the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, his contention is two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that the contents of the F.I.R. show that the alleged physical harassment said to have been caused by the petitioner to the de facto complainant took place in America and no such incident of subjecting the de facto complainant to physical or mental harassment in India has taken place. Therefore, he would submit that the present case cannot be registered under Section 498-A of IPC against the petitioner for the offence that took place outside India i.e. in America. In support of his contention, he relied on Section 188 Cr.P.C. He would then contend that the allegations ascribed against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are all absolutely false and the petitioner has been implicated in a false case. Therefore, on these grounds, he would pray to quash the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner.
6. As regards the offence under Section 377 IPC is concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent State and also learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, would fairly concede that as the Apex Court struck down Section 377 of IPC that the present criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC is not maintainable.
7. However, as regards the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, it has been contended that the facts of the case and the contents of the F.I.R. prima facie show that the alleged harassment caused to the de facto complainant, both physically and mentally, by the petitioner has not only taken place in America, but the same also took place in India. They would also further submit that even though the harassment was caused to the de facto complainant by the petitioner in America, where they lived together for some time, that the consequence of the said harassment ensued to the de facto complainant in India when she was brought by the petitioner to India, and left her in India. So, they would submit that the case can be registered even in India.
8. Learned counsel
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
