Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 2041 Bom

                                                1                               apl481

    ssp

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                        
                       CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.481 OF 2016




                                                
       Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal & Ors.                  ...Applicants 
       vs.
       State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       ...Respondents




                                               
       Mr.Chinmay S. Shah  a/w Mr.Chaitanya Jadhav for the 
       applicants 
       Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the respondent No.1




                                     
       Mr.Kushal Mor for respondent No.2
                              
                     CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
                             P.D.NAIK, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 29, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

. Not on board. Taken on board.

1 Rule. The learned APP waives service for the

respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 waives service. Forthwith taken up

for final disposal. Prayer in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short "Cr.PC")is for quashing the FIR registered at Gamdevi Police Station for the offence

punishable under sections 323, 326, 342, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We have perused the FIR. The FIR is lodged by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is the husband of the applicant No.1. The respondent No.2 is the father of the applicant Nos.2 and 3. The FIR relates to an incident of 16th March 2016 at Dubai. The respondent No.2 stated that at that time, there was an

2 apl481

altercation between him and the respondent No.1 over some property. It is alleged that the applicants

started assaulting him and he was assaulted by a steel rod, leather belt and mobile charger cord and

thereafter, he was detained in the bed room. He stated that on the same date in night, he left Dubai at 11.00 p.m and reached Mumbai at 5.00 a.m and got

himself admitted in Breach Candy Hospital.

2 The respondent No.2 has tendered an affidavit.

In the affidavit, he relied upon the consent terms

dated 13th April 2016. A copy of the consent terms dated 13th April 2016 is annexed to this application

at Exhibit-B. The consent terms have been signed by the applicants and the respondent No.2 before Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, Dubai (U.A.E.).

The consent terms record that all the disputes between the applicants and the respondent No.2 have

been resolved. In the consent terms, it is recorded that the respondent No.2 will assist the applicants

for getting the FIR quashed.

3 We have perused the consent terms and affidavit of the respondent No.2. From the documents on

record, it appears to us that the dispute between the applicants and the respondent No.2 was over a property. The altercation between the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 led to the registration of the FIR.

4 As stated earlier, the applicant No.1 is the wife of the respondent No.2 and the applicant Nos.2

3 apl481

and 3 are respectively the son and daughter of the respondent No.2. One of the terms of the settlement

is that only the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 shall co-habit together and no other applicant

will reside with them.

5 Thus, the dispute appears to be a personal

dispute amongst close family members and now the entire dispute has been amicably settled. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another1, a

case is made out for quashing the FIR. From the report issued by the Breach Candy Hospital and the

injuries mentioned therein, offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all made out.

6 Another aspect is whether the FIR could have

been registered at Mumbai as the alleged offence is committed at Dubai in U.A.E.

7 Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code is relevant for this purpose which reads thus:

"4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences- The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by- [(1)any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

(2)any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be;

1 (2012) 10 SCC page 303

4 apl481

(3)any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer

resource located in India.] Explanation - In this section-

(a) the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India which, if committed

in India, would be punishable under this Code;

(b) the expression "computer resourse" shall

have the meaning assigned to it in clause (k)

of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act,2000."

8 In view of sub-section 1 of section 4, provisions of the Indian Penal Code will apply to an

offence committed by any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India. There is no dispute

that the applicants and the respondent No.2 are the citizens of India. Therefore, the provisions of the

Indian Penal Code will extend to the offences committed by the respondent No.2 beyond India at Dubai. In fact, illustration given below section 4 is very eloquent. Illustration is that `A' who is

citizen of India commits murder in Uganda, he can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found. The term offence is defined under Cr PC under clause (n) of section 2 of the said Code. It means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force.

                                                5                               apl481

     9        Under sub-section (1) of section 154, it is the 

obligation of the Officer in-charge of a police

station to register FIR when information about commission of a cognizable offence is received by

him. Hence, when he receives information about the cognizable offence under IPC committed by a citizen of India, outside India, he is under an obligation

to register FIR and investigate into the offence.

10 Our attention is invited to section 188 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure which reads thus:

"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 with the previous sanction of the Central Government."

11 Firstly, section 188 forms part of Chapter XIII which deals with the jurisdiction of the Criminal

6 apl481

Court in inquiries and trials. The same has nothing to do with the registration of the FIR for an

offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code committed by a citizen of India outside India.

Secondly, in the case of Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another2, the Apex Court has laid down that the

question of previous sanction of the Central Government arises only at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence by the concerned Court.

The sanction contemplated under the proviso to

section 188 is not required for registration of an offence committed by a citizen of India outside

India. We find nothing wrong with the registration of FIR with the Gamdevi Police station. Therefore, the application must succeed.

12 Hence, we pass the following order:

(I) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer

clause (a) which reads:

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside C.R.No.66 of 2016 of the

Gamdevi Police station, Mumbai on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."

(II) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this Judgment and Order.

              (P.D.NAIK,J.)                                (A.S.OKA,J.)

     2  (2011) 9 SCC 527