Offences committed within Indian Territory, even if involving foreign nationals and transactions outside India, can be tried in India without the previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C.

M.M. Banerjee, J.

The revisionist/petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 748 of 2010 arising out of Park Street Police Station Case No. 50 of 2010. Before going into the contention raised in the revisional application within the legal scheme it would not be altogether out of place to refer to the factual matrix of the case as made out in the revisional application in a nutshell.

2. It is stated that petitioner no. 2 Sofia Ahmed is the daughter of petitioner no. 1 Wasir Ahmed. Both are British citizens. Petitioner no.1 is the Chairman of A1-Hamd Great Hall W.S.A. School at 18A, Dr. Sudhir Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 023 and has his business at Birmingham (U.K.). The petitioner no. 2 studied law from the Inns Court School of Law, London and both at present reside at 22/1, Dent Mission Road, P.S. Ekbalpore, Kolkata – 700 023. The petitioner no. 1 arranged marriage of petitioner no. 2 with one Dr. Tarifur Rahaman, the opposite party/complainant. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 at the time of marriage of his daughter gifted diamond and gold jewellery valued at Rs. 12 lakhs and also cash of Rs. 2 lakhs. Such jewellery given by the petitioner no. 1 was taken by her mother-in-law under instruction of the complainant. The petitioner no.1 arranged for the complainant to settle in England for study and work and has spent more than £30,000 British Pounds for accommodation and other expenses of his son-in-law, the complainant of the case and he also arranged for a Halifax Gold Card for his expenses and the complainant used the said card for all his expenses and the petitioner no. 1 had to bear all such expenses. Since the complainant/opposite party no. 2 was unable to open a separate bank account, the petitioner no. 2 opened a joint account with him i.e., her husband and thereafter the complainant opened his separate bank account. It is alleged that £4700 British Pounds was transferred from the joint account to the new single account of the complainant and the single new account was used by both the husband and the wife and the complainant also got British citizenship by being married to a British citizen. The petitioner no. 2 transferred some of her money from her husband's account to her own account to pay for bills which were accumulating in England and also for her own personal expenses she had incurred while living in India since January, 2010. It is alleged that after coming to India in or about January, 2010 the complainant started physical and mental torture upon his wife, the petitioner no. 2 whereupon she lodged a complaint with prayer for police investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Such prayer was allowed and Ekbalpur Police Case no. 39 of 2010 was started and the complainant/opposite party no. 2 was arrested and was in police custody for six days and the petitioner no. 2 also filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband. It is contended that to create pressure upon the revisionist/petitioners the opposite party no. 2/complainant lodged a complaint under Section 379/406/120B I.P.C. read with Section 66 of Information Technology Act on 03.03.2010 alleging that the petitioner no. 1 in collusion with his daughter have illegally siphoned off £10,390 British Pounds from the complainant's account with H.S.B.C. (United Kingdom) to the account of the petitioner no. 2 at Natwest Bank (United Kingdom). It is contended that both the parties are British citizens and the money-in-question was transferred from a bank in U.K. to another bank in U.K. outside India and none of the parties resides within the jurisdiction of Park Street Police Station and no offence can be said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Park Street Police Station. Further contention is that without the previous sanction of the Central Government in accordance with Section 188 Cr.P.C. the proceedings is not at all maintainable and is liable to be quashed.

3. Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta,