Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHIRCY V., J.
Joseph Olakkengil S/o Dr. Paulson – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 3077 of 2021
Decided On : 14-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: P. Vijaya Bhanu, Ajeesh K. Sasi, P.M. Rafiq, Vipin Narayan, Sruthy N. Bhat, M. Revikrishnan.
For the Respondent: P.G. Manu.
Point of Law: Indian citizen, in a foreign country, the local police has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence committed by him outside India.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 482 – Quash of Criminal proceedings – Offence of Rape – British Citizen – False promise of marriage - Sexual relationship.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner herein is admittedly a British citizen. Originally, he was an Indian citizen. But, later he acquired British citizenship voluntarily - Alleged offence was committed outside India, while both the defacto complainant and the petitioner were residing in UK. The FIR itself would reveal that at the time of commission of the alleged offence, the petitioner was not a citizen of India. If only he is a citizen of India and committed an offence outside India, the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Section 188 CrPC are attracted - Petitioner cannot be considered as an Indian citizen under Article 5 of the Constitution of India. His status as an Indian citizen has been terminated under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Britain. It is thus obvious that a detailed or elaborate discussion on merits of the case is quite unwarranted. Doubtless, that a lucid and a clear case for invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is established in the case.
Result: Allowed
ORDER :
1. By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 760 of 2021 of Pavaratty police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has sought for, to quash the crime registered against him.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this petition are as under:
The defacto complainant is a trainee Cardiothoracic surgeon in a hospital at London, U.K. While pursuing her career she got acquainted with the petitioner through a common friend and they became good friends. The friendship continued for about 7 months and while so, he proposed her with his desire to marry her. His proposal was accepted and as he promised to marry her they started to live together. He had sexual relationship with her against her wish and later she became pregnant. When she informed the same, he started to avoid her stating that his family is not willing for the marriage. In fact, he had made false promise to exploit her sexually. He had cheated her under the pretext of marriage and his intention was to avoid her. Under his compulsion she had even aborted her pregnancy. Though she requested him to marry her, he was not willing for the same and to avoid her from his life, he ill treated her both mentally and physically. The physical relationship started under false pretenses, violating her dignity and privacy and thus he committed the aforementioned offences. Pursuant to her complaint the case was registered against him.
3. Heard Sri. Vijayabanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well Sri. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
4. The incident concerning the present case is alleged to have taken place in a foreign country. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that the petitioner is a British citizen and the alleged sexual relationship by him with the defacto complainant was while they were in UK. The complaint of the defacto complainant itself indicates that the alleged occurrence took place at UK and not in the territory of India. The FIR was registered by the police overlooking the legal bar to register a case against a foreign citizen when the offence alleged was committed beyond the territory of India, is the grievance projected by the petitioner. It is argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The police cannot register a case against the petitioner on the allegations in her complaint and therefore it is liable to be quashed. The inherent powers of this Court has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
5. The petitioner is a British citizen though he was born in India and a Malayalee. Annexure A, the copy of the passport in his name would reveal that he is a British citizen. Annexure B, the true copy of the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant would also indicates that the entire relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant took place in U.K. and not within the territory of India. The records would indicate that the offence alleged had been committed by a British citizen outside the territory of India. To determine the point raised in this petition, it would be appropriate to extract, the relevant provisions in the Indian Penal Code as well in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 2 and 3 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted below:
2. Punishment of offences committed within India - Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within [India].
3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India - Any person liable, by any [Indian law], to be tried for an offence committe
