http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 12

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6004 of 2006)

Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel ... Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat & Anr. ...

Respondents

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188

of the Code of Criminal Procedure fall for our consideration in this appeal

which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the

High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.

358 of 2005 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant herein.

3. Son of the appellant Hanif Ahmed Patel was married to the

complainant - respondent on 22.4.2002. Appellant indisputably is a citizen

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 12

2

of Mauritius. Her son and daughter-in-law at all material times were

residing at Kuwait.

A Complaint Petition, however, was filed before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Navsari by the said respondent alleging physical and mental

torture by her husband (the first accused). Allegations primarily against the

appellant therein were that the first accused used to consult her and she used

to instigate him.

As the couple was residing at Kuwait, indisputably the entire cause of

action arose at Kuwait. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari,

however, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and directed issuance of

summons to the appellant by an order dated 30.5.2003.

An application was filed by her stating that the complaint petition

filed without obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 188 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure was bad in law. The same was dismissed.

A joint application with her son was thereafter filed by the appellant

for quashing of the entire complaint petition which was withdrawn.

Appellant, however, filed a fresh application on or about 6.12.2004

raising a contention that as she is a citizen of Mauritius and as the entire

cause of action took place at Kuwait, the order taking cognizance is bad in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 3 of 12

3

law. Whereas the learned trial judge rejected the said plea, the Revisional

Court on a revision application filed by the appellant thereagainst, allowed

the same.

Respondent No. 2 moved the High Court of Gujarat aggrieved

thereby which by reason of the impugned order has been allowed.

4. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in

Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the order taking cognizance as against the appellant was bad in

law. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Central Bank of India Ltd.

vs. Ram Narain[AIR 1955 SC 36].

5. Mr. Pawan Kumar Bahl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent, on the other hand, urged that having regard to the fact that the

appellant having filed an application for quashing earlier on the ground of

non-compliance of the provisions of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure as also having filed a quashing application which stood

withdrawn, the said application was not maintainable.

Offences said to have been committed by the appellant in the

complaint petition were under Sections 498A and 506(2) of the Indian Penal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 4 of 12

4

Code. Provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code o