Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28689

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
H.B. Chandramohan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 745 OF 2025|CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3124 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.G. Sadashivaiah, C.V. Nagesh, Chandan V. Gowda
For the Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, Lakshmy Iyengar, M. Sunil Sastry

Sanction under Section 188 CrPC or Section 208 BNSS for offences committed outside India is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance but is required before the trial commences. Furthermore, magistrates taking cognizance based on police reports are not required to provide detailed reasons for their order.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 208 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 188 - Offence committed outside India - Previous sanction of Central Government - Cognizance stage vs. Trial stage - Section 188 of CrPC and Section 208 of BNSS operate as a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try offences committed outside India, but this bar is not a condition precedent to take cognizance - Such sanction is required only before the commencement of trial. (Paras 7, 8.4, 15, 16)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of offence - Order issuing process based on police report - Magistrate not required to record detailed reasons - When taking cognizance based on a police report, the Magistrate is not obliged to pass a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the material on record. (Paras 12, 12.1)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, including a husband and in-laws, sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated by a wife for offences including cruelty and dowry harassment. Allegations involved incidents reportedly occurring both within and outside the country. Petitioners contended that proceedings were barred for lack of mandatory sanction under Section 188 of the CrPC for offences committed abroad and further alleged that the order of taking cognizance suffered from non-application of mind.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that sanction is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence committed outside India. It clarified that trial for offences committed within India can proceed independently, while trial for offences committed abroad requires sanction under Section 188 of the CrPC/208 of the BNSS before commencement. It further held that an order taking cognizance upon a police report does not require a detailed, reasoned order if the magistrate has examined the material collected during investigation.

Issues: Whether previous sanction of the Central Government is a condition precedent to take cognizance of criminal offences committed by an Indian citizen outside India, and whether the order of taking cognizance by the magistrate satisfies the requirement of application of mind.

Ratio Decidendi: Sanction under Section 188 of the CrPC or 208 of the BNSS is a requirement to commence a trial for offences committed outside the country, but it is not a prerequisite for taking cognizance of the offence. When a magistrate takes cognizance based on a police report, the court has the advantage of the charge sheet and materials collected, and hence need not record elaborate reasons for its satisfaction.

Result: Petitions rejected.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and factual background of the marital dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding extra-territorial jurisdiction and sufficiency of allegations. (Para 4 , 5)
3. sanction under section 188 crpc/208 bnss is not required for cognizance, but required for trial commencement for extra-territorial offences. (Para 7 , 8)
4. the complaint and charge sheet provide prima facie evidence for the alleged offences. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. magistrates are not required to provide detailed reasons for taking cognizance upon a police report. (Para 12)
6. the petitions are rejected as no merit is found in the contentions raised. (Para 13)

Reserved on : 01.04.2026

Pronounced on : 12.06.2026

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 745 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

1. SRI H.B.CHANDRAMOHAN

S/O LATE H.BORAIAH

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

2. SMT. M.S.PRABHAMANI

W/O H.B.CHANDRAMOHAN

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.10/82

1ST FLOOR, SURABHI ENCLAVE

NEAR AMMA ARCH, JNANABHARATHI

2ND STAGE, MARIYAPPANAPALYA

BENGALURU - 560 056.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION

REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SMT. MONIKA C.,

W/O MR. SHASHANK C.,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO. 67

SRINIVASA FARM HOUSE

BEHIND HOTEL AMARAVATHI

SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE

MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA

KARNATAKA – 571 404.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,

DR. M.SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 , PRAYING TO STAY THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC.NO.1699/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85, 49, 352, 351(2), 3(5), 115(2) OF BNS READ WITH 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961; CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR DATED 14.08.2024 REGISTERED ON 23.08.2024 IN CRIME NO.117 OF 2024 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85, 49, 352, 351(2), 3(5), 115(2) OF BNS READ WITH 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3124 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

SHASHANK C.,

S/O CHANDRAMOHAN H. B.,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

R/AT NO.10/82, SURABHI ENCLAVE

KUVEMPU ROAD, 2ND STAGE

JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE CITY

BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA – 560 056.

AS PER DRIVER'S LICENSE

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

3713, GRAYTHORNE DR

MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23112-4877.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI CHANDAN V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION

REPRESENTED BY ITS

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT COMPLEX

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. SMT. MONIKA C.,

W/O SHASHANK C.,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

NO. 67, SRINIVAS FARM HOUSE

BEHIND HOTEL AMARAVATHI

SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE

MANDYA TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,

DR. M.SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 , PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION IN (CRIME NO. 0117/2024) C.C 1699/2024, PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA FOR O/P//U/S 85, 352, 351(2), 49, 115(2), 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT 1961.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CAV ORDER

Criminal Petition No.3124 of 2025 is filed by the husband and the companion petition is by the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. Since these cases arise out of a solitary crime, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.

2. Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Ja

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28689

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM. Nagaprasanna, JH.B. Chandramohan – AppellantVersusState Of Karnataka – RespondentCRIMINAL PETITION No. 745 OF 2025|CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3124 OF 2025

Cases Referred (3)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
H.B. Chandramohan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 745 OF 2025|CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3124 OF 2025