In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has quashed a complaint alleging offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which were purportedly committed in Australia. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the case, held that any offence committed outside India requires prior sanction from the Central Government under the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Consequently, the prosecution against the petitioner was declared invalid.
Background
The petitioner, accused of committing offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, argued that the alleged offences took place while the respondent was residing with him in Australia. As such, the prosecution was claimed to be invalid due to the lack of necessary sanction from the Central Government. This led the petitioner to file a petition under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the complaint.
The respondent, however, contended that despite the acts being committed in Australia, there was an additional allegation of a threat made by the petitioner via a telephone call while she was in India.
Decision and Analysis
Upon reviewing the submissions from both parties, the Court examined Section 188 of the CrPC, which addresses offences committed outside India. The Court reiterated that Section 188 CrPC stipulates that when an offence is committed outside India by an Indian citizen or by a non-citizen on an Indian ship or aircraft, the offender can be prosecuted in India as if the offence had been committed within India. However, the proviso to Section 188 mandates that no such offence shall be investigated or tried in India without prior sanction from the Central Government.
The Court referred to the precedent set in Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2022), which clarified that if an offence is not entirely committed outside India, the proviso to Section 188 CrPC would not apply, and thus no sanction would be necessary. The Court highlighted that the proviso to Section 188 CrPC applies specifically when an offence is committed entirely outside India by an Indian citizen or a person on an Indian ship or aircraft, requiring prior sanction from the Central Government. If any part of the offence, or even a single overt act, is committed in India, the sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not required.
In the present case, the Court found that the allegations under Section 498A IPC were entirely based on acts committed by the petitioner outside India. As a result, the case fell within the ambit of Section 188 CrPC, necessitating prior sanction, which was not obtained. Consequently, the Court quashed the complaint against the petitioner and directed the Magistrate to proceed against the second accused person.
This ruling underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements, especially concerning offences committed outside national boundaries, and highlights the necessity of obtaining proper sanctions before initiating prosecutions.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.Â
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.