Sanction under Section 188 CrPC is unnecessary for offences committed outside India if part occurred within India, validating concurrent cases.

COMMON ORDER

Both these Crl.M.CS are filed by the same accused persons, who are the husband and father-in-law of the 2^nd respondent. She preferred a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery as CMP No. 1719 of 2014 against the petitioners herein, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323 , 342, 506(i), 403, 406 and 498A r/w Section 34 IPC . The learned Magistrate, after making necessary enquiry, has taken cognizance of the offence as C.C. No. 270 of 2020 and issued summons to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 2020 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Moovattupuzha. C.C. No. 1093 of 2014 is also against the petitioners herein under Section 498A and under Section 304 . The above case was registered on the basis of a police report. In the above case, the petitioners herein filed CMP 1240 of 2016 under Section 239 Cr.P.C, praying for their discharge. As per the order dated 25.9.2020 the learned Magistrate dismissed the above application. Aggrieved by the above order dismissing the application for discharge, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2020 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Moovattupuzha. As per the common order dated 29.08.2022, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the above Crl. Revision Petitions along with another petition. Aggrieved by the above common order of the Sessions Judge, dismissing Criminal Revision petition Nos. 42 of 2020 and 43 of 2020, the petitioners preferred these Crl. Miscellaneous Cases under Section 482 CrPC.

2. One of the contentions raised by the learned council for the petitioners is that with respect to the very same incident, these two cases are pending; one based on police report and the other based on a private complaint, which according to the learned counsel is not sustainable. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as against the second petitioner, there are no serious allegations, as according to him, two weeks after the marriage they went abroad and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife abroad. As per the allegations, the de facto complainant was subjected to cruelty, while she was in abroad. Therefore, it was argued that, the prosecution against the 2^nd petitioner is an abuse of the process of the court and the case as against the 2^nd petitioner is liable to be quashed. Further according to the learned counsel, since the entire incident occurred outside India, sanction under Section 188 of CrPC was necessary and in the absence of any such sanction, the proceeding against both the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

3. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel, Sri T.M. Mohammed Youseff, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant would argue that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge concurrently found that there is prima facie case against both the petitioners and as such the said finding cannot be challenged by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. Further, according to the learned Senior counsel, part of the incident occurred while the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent were staying in India. While she was in Dubai, she was subjected to severe physical and mental cruelties and then she was sent back to India and thereafter she has been staying in India. According to the learned senior counsel, since out of a series of incidents, a part of which occurred