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  27th August,  2008,  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at

Hyderabad  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  27th 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.  

2

1986,  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 19th 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 co-

accused  before  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  

Criminal  Petition  Nos.3629  and  2746  of  2008  

4

respectively 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 27th  

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.   

5

5. 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 22nd 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  

6

with 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  

7

could  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  

8

not 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  

9

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  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  

10

was 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  

11

offence  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  

12

pass 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  

13

alleged 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