2013 Supreme(Raj) 1309
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, J.
Nanak Chand Sejwani - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3303 of 2012.
Decided On : 17-05-2013
For the Petitioner:M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate, A.K. Srivastava, P.K. Soni and Sanjay Verma, Advocates.
For the State: Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent No. 2:S.S. Hora and Vijay Gupta, Advocates.
Section 188 Cr.P.C. does not apply to cases where part of the offence has taken place in India.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC - FIR QUASHED - COURT HELD THAT THE OFFENCES WERE COMMITTED OUTSIDE INDIA AND THERE WAS NO SANCTION FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 188 CR.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioner and his family members had subjected the complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and had also misappropriated her Stridhan. The petitioner contended that the offences had occurred outside India and that there was no sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the offences had indeed occurred outside India and that there was no sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the court also held that the offences were not covered by the bar contained in Section 188 Cr.P.C. because part of the offences had taken place in India. The court further held that the FIR was not vague and that the complainant had not made any absurd or inherently improbable allegations.
Issues: Whether the offences were committed outside India and whether there was a sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The FIR need not be encyclopedic. * The purpose of FIR is merely to set the criminal machinery into motion. * While interfering with the FIR and with the investigation, the court should also consider the facts discovered by the investigating agency and see if the ingredients of the offence have been revealed or not. * Section 188 Cr.P.C. does not apply to cases where part of the offence has taken place in India. * A criminal conspiracy being a continuous offence, if any part of the offence takes place in India, then the requirement of having a sanction from the Central Government does not come into force.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the FIR was not liable to be quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR No. 108/2012, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22.5.1998, the petitioner's son, Anil Kumar, was married to respondent No. 2, Smt. Manju Sejwani, in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. Prior to her marriage, Smt. Manju was a permanent resident of Spain where she lived with her brothers and parents. While in Spain, she worked and earned for herself. After her marriage while she stayed at Jaipur, she was uncomfortable and insisted that she be permitted to go back to Spain. She stayed with her in-laws in Jaipur for five to six months. In November, 1998, she went back to Spain. In February, 1999, she bore a son. In August, 1999, the petitioner's son, Anil Kumar, also migrated to Spain. From August, 1999 till October, 2009 i.e. almost for a decade, Anil and Manju stayed together in Spain. However, after 2002, Manju's marriage became rocky to the extent that Manju and her husband had a temporary split in 2002. Without informing her, Anil left Spain alongwith their son and returned to India. In order to recover the custody of the child, Manju rushed to India, filed a habe as corpus petition before this court; this court granted her the custody of the child. Therefore, in May, 2002, she returned back to Spain along with her child. Due to interference of the relatives, a settlement was arrived at between Manju and her husband, Anil; they tried to patch-up their marriage. From 2002 to 2005, Anil's family migrated to Spain. With the migration of the petitioner and his other family members, things again worsened in Manju's marriage. On four different occasions, Anil lodged divorce petitions before the competent court at Spain. Unfortunately, the couple got more and more embroiled in litigation in Spain.
3. Since things were getting from bad to worse for Manju, she came back to India in August, 2012. She resided with her father-in-law, the petitioner who was in India at that time. However, according to Manju, the petitioner continued with his unreasonable demands of seeking money from Manju's family. Therefore, she filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan. The criminal complaint was not only filed against the petitioner, but also against his other family members including her husband, Anil Kumar. In the complaint, she narrated the facts as to how immediately after her marriage, she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty by Anil and his family members, how they had taken away her jewelry, her clothes and had refused to return her Stridhan which was entrusted to them in Jaipur, how she was tortured by them while she was in Spain, how her husband, Anil, had committed forgery and had deprived her of her shops in Spain, how the accused persons had sold those shops in Spain and had bought property in Jaipur with the sale proceeds, how they had demanded large amount of money from her and her parents, both in Spain and in Jaipur, in August and September, 2012. The complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 108/12 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this court for quashing the same.
4. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, since 2002, both Manju and her husband are involved in a series of litigation both in India and in Spain. While Anil had filed a series of divorce petitions against her, she had filed a habeas corpus petition against the petitioner's son Anil. Thus, there is a grave animosity that does exist between Manju and her husband and her husband's family.
5. Secondly, the FIR is a motivate
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
