LexTHOTA VENKATESWARLU versus STATE OF A.P. TR. PRINCL. SEC. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ ..
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 95
\.,.
. '· ~
THOTA VENKATESWARLU
..
'
~
., STATE OF A.P. TR. PRINCL. SEC. & ANR.
(SLP ( Crl.) No~ 7640 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2011
[ALTAMAS KABIR,
CYRIAC JOSEPH AND SURINDER
SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
•
J'
., .•
s. '188 proviso :...oifence 'committed outside India· by
A
B
c
citizen of India - Previous sanction of Central Government.for
inquiring Into or trying such offences in India - Requirement
of~ }ield:· Upto·the stage· of taking cognizance; no previous·
sariction is required from the Central Government irf:terms of D
tlfe ·proviso to s. '188 - However, the''trialcanriotproceed,
lieyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction.
of the Central Government.
· · · . · '
·
·
• · · ·
' 'i
s. 188 -~Offence committed outside India - Petitioner-
husband and respondent No. 2-wife married in lndi~ - At the
E
time of marriage, cash and gold given by father of respondent
No;t 2,to. the petitioner - Petitioner left for abroad~Botswana
.
-
. .....
....
and respondent No., .2 joined him .one, month, later -
Respondent No. 2 allegedly ill-treated by" the petiiioner as also
demand for dowry raised by the petitiOrJer, af!d his immediate
F
relatives eyway of phone ca/fs-: _Respon<j(3n_t{\Jo. ?. addressed
a complaint to the police in India : R~gistiation of C011Jplaint
ulss. 498-A and. 506 /PC and ss .. 3 and 4, of the Dowry
· Prohibition Act;. 1986 -
Charge-sheet. filed ?gainst Jhe
petitioner and his close relatives-co-accused - Cognizance
G
taken by Magistrate - Petition filed by the petitioner and co-
accused seeking quashing of the same - High Court quashed
proceedings against 'the co-accused, ·however dismissed the
petition· filed by the petitioner - on appeal, held: Alleged
< I
~
,
.
95
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A offences u/ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act occurred
within the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts in India
and could, therefore, be tried by the courts in India without
obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government -
Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to offences -
B However, in respect of offences alleged to have been
committed outside India, the Magistrate shall not proceed with
the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as
envisaged in the proviso to s. 188 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
498-A and 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986 - ss. 3 and 4.
C
Petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife got
married in India. At the time of marriage, father of
respondent No. 2 gave cash and gold to the petitioner
and his relatives (accused Nos. 1 to 4). The petitioner left
for abroad-Botswana and respondent No. 2 joined him
D one month later. It is alleged that while in Botswana, the
petitioner ill-treated respondent No.2 as also raised dowry
demands. The petitioner's immediate relatives also raised
dowry demands by way of phone calls. Respondent No.
2 addressed a complaint to the police in India from
E Bostwana. The case was registered ulss. 498-A and 506
IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986.
The charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and his
close relatives. The Magistrate took cognizance of the
case and ordered issuance of summons against the
F accused. The petitioner and accused Nos. 2 to 4 filed a
criminal petition seeking quashing of the cognizance
taken by the Magistrate u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court
allowed the criminal petition filed by accused Nos .. 2 to
4, however, dismissed the one filed by the petitioner.
G Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant Special Leave
Petition.
The question which arose for consideration in the
instant case was whether in respect of a series of
offences arising out of the same transaction, some of
H which were committed within India and some outside
THOTA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE OF A.P. TR.
97
PRINCL. SEC. & ANR.
India, such offences could be tried together, without the
A
previous sanction of the Central Government, as
envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Disposing of the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the complaint made by respondent
B
No.2, it is clear that the cases relating to alleged offences
under Section 498-A and 506 l.P.C. had been committed
outside India in Botswana, where the petitioner and
respondent No.2 were residing. At best it may be said that
the alleged offences under SectionsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.