IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that offences committed partially in India and partially abroad do not require prior sanction under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. for trial, provided there is a prima facie case.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for easy reference), by the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in S.C. No. 1089/2022 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Chengannur, seeking the following relief:

On the grounds enumerated here in above and on other grounds this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash annexure 29 (Final Report submitted by the Nooranadu Police pursuant to Crime No. 794/2018 and pending trial before the Fast Track Special Judge, Chengannur as Session's Case No. 1089/2022) and Annexure 32 Court Charge therein dated 26-08-2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the prosecution records including the court charge framed in this case placed as Annexure-32 and also gone through the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Thota Venkateswaralu v. State of A.P. and Another, 2011 KHC 4798 : 2011 (2) KLD 565 : 2011 (9) SCALE 603 : 2011 (3) KLT 909 : AIR 2011 SC 2900 : 2011 (9) SCC 527 : 2011 Cri LJ 4925 : 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 772 and Shajan Theruvath v. State of Kerala and Another, 2018 KHC 350 : 2018 (2) KLJ 925 : 2018 (3) KLT SN 8.

3. Scanning the genesis of the prosecution case, the same runs on the premise that, during the Month of May, 2005, 1st and 2nd accused after sharing common intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant taken her to Muscat with offer to provide a job in Muscat. The specific allegation is that, the 1st accused approached the defacto complainant and offered to provide nursing job to her. Thereafter, she along with the 1st accused went to Surat in this regard. But, she did not participate any interview there. It is alleged that during her stay in Surat, the 1st accused subjected the defacto complainant to rape and ill treated her after threatening her. Later, she left Surat and went to Dubai and Kuwait and was employed there for about ten years. Though, she had no connection with the 1st accused after 2005, on a day during the month of April, 2018 the 1st accused approached the defacto complainant and offered to provide another job in Muscat. Although, the defacto complainant was not amenable for the suggestion of the 1st accused, since she had no confidence in him, the defacto complainant agreed for the offer as she had loan arrears to be cleared and she faced recovery proceedings during the relevant time. Thus, because of the compulsion of the 1st accused, she agreed to go to Muscat. Accordingly, she was given the job of a house maid at the house of the 2nd accused and she was offered Rs.35,000/- as salary.

4. The statement of the defacto complainant further is that, while the defacto complainant had been working as a house maid at the house of the 2nd accused, the 2nd accused subjected her to rape on two days during night after threatening her that she was brought in Muscat for the said purpose and the endeavor made by the defacto complainant to rescue herself went in vain. She informed the same to the 1st accused, but he did not help her and he encouraged the defacto complainant to continue there and co-operate with the 2nd accused. But, the defacto complainant could not tolerate the sexual assault and thus she was forced to leave the job. Accordingly, on 12.06.2015 she was sent back to India. This is the basis on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 366, 370, 370(A)(2), 354(A)(1)(ii), 354(A)(2), 376(2)(K)(N), 506(1), 420 read with 34 of IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two specific contentions while seeking quashment of the entire proceedings, inclusive of Annexure.A32 charge. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, who has been running business and providing employment to many persons in Muscat, bonafidely given employment to the defacto complainant and when the defacto complain