OM HEMRAJANI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 25-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

OM HEMRAJANI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
_ NOVEMBER 25, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 188-0ffence committed 
outside India-Inquiries and Trial-Jurisdiction of Criminal Court-Held: 
A 
B 
The offences committed outside India can be inquired and tried by any 
Court in India approached by the victim-The Court where the complaint . C 
is filed and where the accused appears either voluntarily or in execution 
of warrant would be the competent Court-The finding of accused has to 
be by the Court and not the complainant or Police-The convenience of 
the victim and not the offender is relevant-Determination of the abuse of 
such wide option to the victim would depend on the facts of each case. D 
Respondent No. 2, a Dubai based Bank filed a complaint against 
the petitioner in a Criminal Court at Ghaziabad for commission of 
offences punishable under IPC. Criminal Court took cognizance of the 
offence and issued processes and also issued non-bailable warrants. 
Petitioner filed petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint E 
case and also challenged the order of the Criminal Court on the ground 
that the Court at Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of 
the offence as neither the petitioner resided there nor the eomplainant 
had any office there. High Court held that the Court did not lack 
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 
F 
In appeal to this Court petitioner contended that the likelihood of 
the availability of the offender is implicit in the expression used in 
Section 188. 
Respondent-Bank contended that in view of Scheme of Chapter G 
XIII, the expression 'at which he may be found' in S4!ction 188 Cr.P.C. 
only means the place where the accused may either appear voluntarily 
or brought by Police in execution of warrants of arrest, since the 
responsibility to find the accused is of the Court and not that of the 
complainant or the Police. 
H 
365 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Court where the complaint may be filed and the 
accused either appears voluntarily pursuant to issue of process or is 
brought before it involuntarily in execution of warrants, would be the 
B competent Court within the meaning of Section 188 Cr.P.C. as that 
Court would find the accused before him where he appears. The finding 
has to be by the Court. It has neither to be by the complainant nor by 
the Police. The Section deems the offence to be committed within the 
jurisdiction of the Court where the accused may be found. [373-D, E] 
C 
1.2. From the scheme of Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C., it is clear that 
neither the place of business place of residence of the petitioner and for 
that matter of even the complainant is of any relevance. The relevant 
factors is the place of commission of offence. By legal fiction. Section 188 
which deals with offence committed outside India, makes the place at 
which the offender may be found to be a place of commission of offence. 
D Section 188 proceeds on the basis that a fugitive from justice may be 
found anywhere in India. The finding of the accused has to be by the 
Court where accused appears. From the plain and clear language of the 
Section, it is evident that the finding of the accused cannot be by the 
complainant or the Police. Further, it is not expected that a victim of an 
E offence which was committed outside India should come to India and 
first try to ascertain where the accused is or may be and then approach 
that court. The convenience of such a victim is of importance. That has 
been kept in view by Section 188. A victim may come to India and 
approach any court convenient to him and file complaint in respect of 
F 
G 
H 
offence committed abroad by the Indian. The convenience of a person 
who is hiding after committing offence abroad and is fugitive from 
justice is not relevant. The Court cannot compare the question of 
convenience of the accused at the cost of victim's convenience. Between 
the two, the convenience of the latter has to prevail. It is in this context, 
the expression in question has to be interpreted. [370-G-H; 371-A, B, C] 
Reg. v. Benito Lopez, (1858) Cr.L.C. 431; Empress v. Magan/al, ILR 
Born. Series (Vol. 6) 622; Emperor v. Vinayak Damodar Sarvarkar, (1910) 
35 ILR 223 and Sahebrao Bajirao v. Suryabhan Ziblajit and Ors., AIR 
(1948) Nag. 251, referred to. 
2. Regarding the abuse of such wide option

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.