Jesna Rehim vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 9912 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
                      WP(CRL.) NO. 758 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            JESNA REHIM, AGED 36 YEARS
            D/O.ABDUL RAHIM, NETTIKUDIYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA,
            KUMARAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 565,
            KERALA STATE.

            BY ADVS.AYSHA YOUSEFF
            MOLLY JACOB, JOBI.A.THAMPI
            M.KABANI DINESH, ASHIFA YOUSEFF
            RABIA BEEGAM T.K., FASHIYA YOUSEFF
            C.M.EBRAHIM, SHOUKATH HUSAIN


RESPONDENTS:

    1       UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
            TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI-
            110001.

    2       ZAMEEL MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED KOTTAPPURATHVEETTIL,
            PERINGALA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 565.

    3       MUHAMMED, S/O.MUSTHAFFA, KOTTAPURATHVEETTIL,
            PERINGALA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 565.

            BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CRIMINAL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl).No.758/2022

                                    -:2:-




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022

The petitioner is the victim and defacto complainant in

C.C.No.1093/2014 and C.C.No.270/2020 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolanchery. Respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 are the accused. The offences alleged against the

accused in C.C.NO.1093/2014 are punishable under Sections 498

A and 34 of IPC and the offences alleged in C.C.No.270/2020 are

punishable under Sections 323, 342, 506, 403 and 406 of IPC.

2. According to the prosecution, the offences were

committed at Pallikara in Kerala as well as in Dubai. Since part

of the offence was committed outside India, the petitioner

submitted Ext.P1 representation seeking sanction of the 1 st

respondent/Union of India. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P2

informing that the petitioner has to approach the State

Government. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 review

petition to review Ext.P2 proceedings. It is in these

circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. W.P.(Crl).No.758/2022

3. I have heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced

before me the latest decision of Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan

v. State of Uttarakhand [2022 (2) KHC 846]. The Apex Court

has held that the sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C is required

only when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India

and when offence was not committed in its entirety outside India,

there is no necessity of any sanction.

5. In this case, admittedly, part of the offence was

committed in India and hence the dictum laid down in the above

decision would squarely apply. The learned Magistrate can

proceed with the case without getting any sanction under Section

188 of Cr.P.C. W.P.(Crl) is disposed of.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp W.P.(Crl).No.758/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 758/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 2/2/201 FOR SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION.

Exhibit P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.9/01/2020 JUDICIAL CELL II ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 3/3/2021.

Exhibit P3 PHOTO COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 13/4/2021.

Exhibit P4 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 26/10/2016 IN CRL.R.P.NO.77/2016.