REPORTABE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.7640 OF 2008
THOTA VENKATESWARLU … PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF A.P. TR. PRINCL.
SEC. & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against
the judgment and order dated 27
th
August, 2008,
passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh atHyderabad in Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008
dismissing the Petition filed by the Petitioner
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
(‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing the proceedings
in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 pending before the
Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki. This case
raises certain interesting questions of law and to
appreciate the same, some of the facts are required
to be reproduced.
2. The Petitioner, Thota Venkateswarlu, was
married to the Respondent No.2, Parvathareddy
Suneetha, on 27
th
November, 2005, as per Hindu
traditions and customs in the Sitharama Police
Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra
Pradesh. At the time of marriage 12 lakhs in
cash, 45 sovereigns of gold and 50,000/- as
Adapaduchu Katnam is alleged to have been given to
the Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the husband, the
mother-in-law and other relatives of the husband.
2According to the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner
left India for Botswana in January 2006 without
taking her along with him. However, in February,
2006, the Respondent No.2 went to Botswana to join
the Petitioner. While in Botswana, the Respondent
No.2 is alleged to have been severely ill-treated
by the Petitioner and apart from the above, various
demands were also made including a demand for
additional dowry of 5 lakhs. On account of such
physical and mental torture not only by the
Petitioner/husband, but also by his immediate
relatives, who continued to demand additional dowry
by way of phone calls from India, the Respondent
No.2 addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of
Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh,
from Botswana and the same was registered as Case
(Crl.) No.25 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 506
Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’ for short) together
with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
31986, by the Station House Officer, Medarametla
Police Station, on the instructions of the
Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. Upon
investigation into the complaint filed by the
Respondent No.2, the Inspector of Police,
Medarametla, filed a charge-sheet in CC No.307 of
2007 in the Court of the Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District, under
Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioner
and his father, mother and sister, who were named
as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the aforesaid case and by his
order dated 19
th
February, 2007, ordered issuance of
summons against the accused.
3. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate
was questioned by the Petitioner and the other coaccused before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Criminal Petition Nos.3629 and 2746 of 2008
4respectively and a prayer was made for quashing of
the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The High Court by its order dated 27
th
August, 2008, allowed Criminal Petition No.2746 of
2008 filed by the Accused Nos.2 to 4 and quashed
the proceedings against them. However, Criminal
Petition No.3629 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner
herein was dismissed. The present Special Leave
Petition is directed against the said order of the
High Court rejecting the Petitioner’s petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and declining to quash
Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 initiated against
him.
4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner before this Court have raised
certain important questions which warrant the
attention of this Court.
55. It has been submitted on behalf of the
Petitioner that as will appear from the complaint
made by the Respondent No.2 to the Superintendent
of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra
Pradesh on 22
nd
March, 2007, no grounds had been
made out therein to continue with the proceedings
in India, having regard to the provisions of
Section 188 Cr.P.C., which provides as follows :-
“188. Offence committed outside India –
When an offence is committed outside
India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the
high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen,
on any ship or aircraft registered in
India.
he may be dealt with in respect of such
offence as if it had been committed at any
place within India at which he may be
found:
Provided that, notwithstanding
anything in any of the preceding sections
of this Chapter, no such offence shall be
inquired into or tried in India except
6with the previous sanction of the Central
Government.”
6. Learned counsel urged that Section 188 Cr.P.C.
recognizes that when an offence is committed
outside India by a citizen of India, he would have
to be dealt with as if such offence had been
committed in any place within India at which he may
be found. Learned counsel, however, laid stress on
the proviso which indicates that no such offence
could be inquired into or tried in India except
with the previous sanction of the Central
Government [Emphasis Supplied]. Learned counsel
submitted that in respect of an offence committed
outside India, the same could not be proceeded with
without previous sanction of the Central Government
and that, accordingly, even if any of the offences
was allegedly committed inside India, trial in
respect of the same could continue, but the trial
in respect of the offences committed outside India
7could not be continued, without the previous
sanction of the Central Government.
7. On behalf of the Respondents it was urged that
a part of the alleged offences relating to the
Dowry Prohibition Act did appear to have arisen in
India, even at the initial stage when various
articles, including large sums of cash and
jewellery were given in dowry by the father of the
Respondent No.2. It was submitted that since a
part of the cause of action had arisen in India on
account of alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1968, the learned
Magistrate trying the said complaint could also try
the other offences alleged to have been committed
outside India along with the said offences.
Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court
in Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1993)
3 SCC 609], wherein it had been held that obtaining
the previous sanction of the Central Government was
8not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of
offences, since sanction could be obtained before
trial begins.
8. The question which we have been called upon to
consider in this case is whether in respect of a
series of offences arising out of the same
transaction, some of which were committed within
India and some outside India, such offences could
be tried together, without the previous sanction of
the Central Government, as envisaged in the proviso
to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
9. From the complaint made by the Respondent No.2
in the present case, it is clear that the cases
relating to alleged offences under Section 498-A
and 506 I.P.C. had been committed outside India in
Botswana, where the Petitioner and the Respondent
No.2 were residing. At best it may be said that
the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the
9Dowry Prohibition Act occurred within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in
India and could, therefore, be tried by the Courts
in India without having to obtain the previous
sanction of the Central Government. However, we
are still left with the question as to whether in
cases where the offences are alleged to have been
committed outside India, any previous sanction is
required to be taken by the prosecuting agency,
before the trial can commence.
10. The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite
clear that when an offence is committed outside
India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with
in respect of such offences as if they had been
committed in India. The proviso, however,
indicates that such offences could be inquired into
or tried only after having obtained the previous
sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned
hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal’s case (supra), it
10was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is
not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of
an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained
before the trial begins. Even in his concurring
judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows :-
“29. Language of the section is plain and
simple. It operates where an offence is
committed by a citizen of India outside the
country. Requirements are, therefore, one —
commission of an offence; second — by an Indian
citizen; and third — that it should have been
committed outside the country.”
Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal’s case
(supra) was rendered in the background of a
conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the
accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to
what has been observed hereinabove in the
interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C. The proviso
to Section 188, which has been extracted
hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the
investigating authority to inquire into or try any
11offence mentioned in the earlier part of the
Section, except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government. The fetters, however, are
imposed only when the stage of trial is reached,
which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms
of Section 188 is required till commencement of the
trial. It is only after the decision to try the
offender in India was felt necessary that the
previous sanction of the Central Government would
be required before the trial could commence.
11. Accordingly, upto the stage of taking
cognizance, no previous sanction would be required
from the Central Government in terms of the proviso
to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot
proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the
previous sanction of the Central Government. The
Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against
the accused in respect of offences having been
committed in India and to complete the trial and
12pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by
the other alleged offences for which sanction would
be required.
12. It may also be indicated that the provisions
of the Indian Penal Code have been extended to
offences committed by any citizen of India in any
place within and beyond India by virtue of Section
4 thereof. Accordingly, offences committed in
Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be
amenable to the provisions of the Indian Penal
Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the
proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
13. Having regard to the above, while we see no
reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision
to reject the petitioner’s prayer for quashing of
the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007,
we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate
may proceed with the trial relating to the offences
13alleged to have been committed in India. However,
in respect of offences alleged to have been
committed outside India, the learned Magistrate
shall not proceed with the trial without the
sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in
the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
14. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of
accordingly.
………………………………………………………J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
………………………………………………………J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
………………………………………………………J.
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
New Delhi,
Dated: 02.09.2011.
14
