Sanction Of Central Government U/S 188 CrPC Not Necessary When Offences Were Committed Partly In India & Partly Abroad: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court observed that the sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC is not necessary to proceed with the trial when offences were committed partly in India and partly abroad.
The Court dismissed a petition filed by an accused who sought to quash the final report submitted by the police and the pending trial under Section 482 of the CrPC. The prosecution strongly opposed the petition arguing that the genesis of the prosecution case was inside India and therefore, the sanction provided under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. was not necessary
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Thus, it appears that, as per the prosecution allegations and as per the charge framed by the Court against accused Nos. 1 and 2, offences punishable under Sections 366, 370, 370(A)(2), 354(A)(1) (ii), 354(A)(2), 376(2)(K)(N), 506(1), 420 read with 34 of IPC have been partly committed in India and partly abroad. If so, applying the ratio in Sartaj Khan’s case in order to proceed with the trial, sanction provided under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is not necessary in the facts of this particular case. Therefore, the challenge in this regard on the ground of want of sanction would not yield.”
Advocate P. Chandy Joseph appeared for the petitioner, while Sr. PP Renjith George represented the respondents.
The genesis of the prosecution case was on the premise that the accused shared a common intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant, and subsequently took her to Muscat with an offer to provide a job. The defacto complainant alleged that the 1st accused subjected her to rape in Surat and later, she was employed in Dubai and Kuwait for about ten years. The 1st accused approached her again, and she was compelled to go to Muscat, where she was offered a job as a housemaid at the 2nd accused's house and subjected to sexual assault by the 2nd accused as well.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2022) wherein it was held that in terms of Section 188 of the CrPC, even if an offence was committed outside India, it can still be tried in India provided the conditions mentioned in said Section are satisfied. The Apex Court held that the Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India, and the grant of sanction would enable such an offence to be enquired into or tried in India.
“Overall evaluation of the materials as discussed herein above would indicate that this is a matter where quashment cannot be considered restraining the prosecution from adducing evidence in support of the allegations, since the allegations positing commission of very serious offences are made out, prima facie. Further, sanction provided under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is not necessary to proceed with the trial of this matter,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court remarked, “Though, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that, the allegations against the petitioner is a cooked up tale leveled for the purpose of recusal of the defacto complainant from the job provided by the 2nd accused and to go in search of a profitable job, the prosecution materials no way disclose such a case. Therefore, the said contention can be taken in aid by the petitioner during trial.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Rajesh Gopalakrishnan v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:52808)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates P. Chandy Joseph and C.K.Vidyasagar
Respondents: Sr. PP Renjith George