ORDER : 1. By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 760 of 2021 of Pavaratty police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has sought for, to quash the crime registered against him. 2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this petition are as under: The defacto complainant is a trainee Cardiothoracic surgeon in a hospital at London, U.K. While pursuing her career she got acquainted with the petitioner through a common friend and they became good friends. The friendship continued for about 7 months and while so, he proposed her with his desire to marry her. His proposal was accepted and as he promised to marry her they started to live together. He had sexual relationship with her against her wish and later she became pregnant. When she informed the same, he started to avoid her stating that his family is not willing for the marriage. In fact, he had made false promise to exploit her sexually. He had cheated her under the pretext of marriage and his intention was to avoid her. Under his compulsion she had even aborted her pregnancy. Though she requested him to marry her, he was not willing for the same and to avoid her from his life, he ill treated her both mentally and physically. The physical relationship started under false pretenses, violating her dignity and privacy and thus he committed the aforementioned offences. Pursuant to her complaint the case was registered against him. 3. Heard Sri. Vijayabanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well Sri. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 4. The incident concerning the present case is alleged to have taken place in a foreign country. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that the petitioner is a British citizen and the alleged sexual relationship by him with the defacto complainant was while they were in UK. The complaint of the defacto complainant itself indicates that the alleged occurrence took place at UK and not in the territory of India. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that the petitioner is a British citizen and the alleged sexual relationship by him with the defacto complainant was while they were in UK. The complaint of the defacto complainant itself indicates that the alleged occurrence took place at UK and not in the territory of India. The FIR was registered by the police overlooking the legal bar to register a case against a foreign citizen when the offence alleged was committed beyond the territory of India, is the grievance projected by the petitioner. It is argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The police cannot register a case against the petitioner on the allegations in her complaint and therefore it is liable to be quashed. The inherent powers of this Court has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is a British citizen though he was born in India and a Malayalee. Annexure A, the copy of the passport in his name would reveal that he is a British citizen. Annexure B, the true copy of the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant would also indicates that the entire relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant took place in U.K. and not within the territory of India. The records would indicate that the offence alleged had been committed by a British citizen outside the territory of India. To determine the point raised in this petition, it would be appropriate to extract, the relevant provisions in the Indian Penal Code as well in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 2 and 3 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted below: 2. Punishment of offences committed within India - Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within [India]. 3. Section 2 and 3 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted below: 2. Punishment of offences committed within India - Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within [India]. 3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India - Any person liable, by any [Indian law], to be tried for an offence committed beyond [India] shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond [India] in the same manner as if such act had been committed within [India]. Section 2(n) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines offence as under: “2(n) “offence” means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871).” Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “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. (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 resource” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).” Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure 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. Offence committed outside India - When an offence is committed outside India: (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere. (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.” To appreciate the rival submissions, it is also necessary to refer to Articles 5 of the Constitution of India and it is extracted hereunder: “5. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution - At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory of India: (a) who was born in the territory of India. (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India. (c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India. It is pertinent to have a look at Article 9 of the Constitution of India which reads as under: 9. Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign State not to be citizens - No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of article 6 or article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.” In this context, Section 9 of Citizenship Act, 1955 is also relevant which reads as follows: “9. Termination of citizenship: (1) Any citizen of India who by naturalization, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act, voluntarily acquired, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case may be, such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India who, during any war in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until the Central Government otherwise directs: (2) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any [citizen of India] has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf.” 6. It is significant to note that the Constitution of Indian does not allow holding Indian citizenship and citizenship of a foreign country simultaneously. If a citizen of India voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, he cease to be a citizen of India. Section 188 Cr.P.C. concerns as to how to deal with an Indian citizen who has committed an offence outside India. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36 , had considered the question whether the East Punjab Government had power to grant sanction for prosecution of an accused under Indian Penal Code who committed an offence in a district which after partition of India became part of Pakistan, and whether he could be tried for the offence by a criminal court in India after his migration to Pakistan, on acquiring the status of a citizen, in view of the rule enunciated in Section 4 of IPC and 188 of Cr.P.C. 8. It was a case in which one Ram Narain, the respondent, was carrying on business at Mailsi in Multan District by availing a cash credit limit from the appellant (Central Bank) before partition of British India. The said facility was secured against his stock. On 15th August, 1947 when British India was split into two Dominions the stocks pledged with the bank were found stolen and on inquiry it was revealed that he stealthily sold it and recovered the money. The said facility was secured against his stock. On 15th August, 1947 when British India was split into two Dominions the stocks pledged with the bank were found stolen and on inquiry it was revealed that he stealthily sold it and recovered the money. Then, the bank sought for sanction to prosecute him under Section 188 Cr.P.C. for the offence committed in Pakistan and the East Punjab Government accorded sanction for prosecution under Sections 380, 411 and 454 I.P.C. Ram Narain resisted prosecution contending that the Government was not competent to accord sanction and sought for to quash the proceedings. He was successful before the High Court. But then the Bank approached the Apex Court with this Criminal appeal wherein after quoting the relevant portion of Section 4. I.P.C (before amendment) and Section 188 Cr.P.C. observed in Para No. 5 as follows: “5......The language of the sections plainly means that if at the time of the commission of the offence, the person committing it is a citizen of India, then even if the offence is committed outside India he is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in India. The rule enunciated in the sections is based on the principle that qua citizens the jurisdiction of courts is not lost by reason of the venue of the offence. If, however, at the time of the commission of the offence the accused person is not a citizen of India, then the provisions of these sections have no application whatsoever. A foreigner was not liable to be dealt with in British India for an offence committed and completed outside British India under the provisions of the sections as they stood before the adaptations made in them after the partition of India. Illustration (a) to Section 4. I.P.C delimits the scope of the section. It indicates the extent and the ambit of this section. It runs as follows: “(a) A, a coolie, who is a Native Indian subject commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in British India in which he may be found.” In the illustration, if (A) was not a Native Indian subject at the time of the commission of the murder the provisions of section 4. I.P.C. could not apply to his case. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in British India in which he may be found.” In the illustration, if (A) was not a Native Indian subject at the time of the commission of the murder the provisions of section 4. I.P.C. could not apply to his case. The circumstance that after the commission of the offence a person becomes domiciled in another country, or acquires citizenship of that State, cannot confer jurisdiction on the courts of that territory retrospectively for trying offences committed and completed at a time when that person was neither the national of that country nor was he domiciled there.” It was further held as under: “6..........If Ram Narain had Indian domicile at the time of the commission of the offence, he would certainly come within the ambit of Section 4, I.P.C and Section 188 Cr.P.C. If on the other hand, he was not domiciled in India at the relevant moment, those sections would have no application to his case.” “8..........The subsequent acquisition by Ram Narain of Indian domicil cannot affect the question of jurisdiction of courts for trying him for crimes committed by him while he did not possess an Indian domicil.” 9. In the light of the aforementioned observations the Apex Court finally held that the decision of the High Court that Ram Narain could not be tried in any court in India for the offences committed in Mailsi in Multan District, Pakistan in November 1947 is right, as at the time of commission of the offence he was not an Indian citizen and that the Provincial Government had no power under Section 188 Cr.P.C. to accord sanction to his prosecution. 10. The same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 2008 SC 2392 . It was a case registered on a complaint lodged by a lady, against her husband and her mother-in-law (a citizen of Mauritius) for having committed offences punishable under Section 498 A and 506(2) of IPC while residing in Kuwait. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari and directed issuance of summons to them. Then Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel, the mother-in-law challenged the proceedings initiated against her contending that it was bad in law as she was not a citizen of India. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari and directed issuance of summons to them. Then Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel, the mother-in-law challenged the proceedings initiated against her contending that it was bad in law as she was not a citizen of India. But the said contention was rejected by the trial court and her petition was dismissed and thereafter she along with her son challenged the said order in a revision petition and that was allowed. Then the defacto complainant moved before the High Court of Gujarat where her application was allowed. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held as follows: “5........In terms of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code, the Indian courts will have jurisdiction to try an accused only if the accused is a citizen of India even if the offence was committed outside India or by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Neither of the aforementioned contingencies is attracted in the instant case. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also deals with offences committed outside India. Clause (a) brings within its sweep a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or by a person, although not citizen of India when the offence is committed on any ship or aircraft registered in India. In view of the fact that the offence is said to have been committed in Kuwait, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to have any application. The further observation is extracted as under: “8.............An accused has a fundamental right in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be proceeded against only in accordance with law. The law which would apply in India subject of course to the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the offence must be committed within the territory of India. If admittedly, the offence has not been committed within the territorial limits of India, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as also the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply. If admittedly, the offence has not been committed within the territorial limits of India, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as also the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply. If the provisions of the said Acts have no application as against the appellant, the order taking cognizance must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.....” 11. Clause (1) of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code clearly indicates three significant conditions. Firstly, it is regarding the commission of an offence. Secondly, it says that the offence must be committed by a citizen of India. Thirdly, it is that, the offence should have been committed in any place beyond India. If these three conditions are satisfied, then the jurisdiction of the courts in India is not lost and no doubt he can be prosecuted in India, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, if an offence is committed by a person who is not an Indian citizen, in a foreign country, the local police has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence committed by him outside India. Initiation of criminal proceedings in such cases are vitiated due to want of jurisdiction. 12. The petitioner herein is admittedly a British citizen. Originally, he was an Indian citizen. But, later he acquired British citizenship voluntarily. The alleged offence was committed outside India, while both the defacto complainant and the petitioner were residing in UK. The FIR itself would reveal that at the time of commission of the alleged offence, the petitioner was not a citizen of India. If only he is a citizen of India and committed an offence outside India, the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C. are attracted. 13. Here as referred above, pertinently the petitioner, originally an Indian citizen, voluntarily acquired citizenship of a foreign country and thus ceased to be a citizen of India. In short, the petitioner cannot be considered as an Indian citizen under Article 5 of the Constitution of India. His status as an Indian citizen has been terminated under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Britain. It is thus obvious that a detailed or elaborate discussion on merits of the case is quite unwarranted. His status as an Indian citizen has been terminated under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Britain. It is thus obvious that a detailed or elaborate discussion on merits of the case is quite unwarranted. Doubtless, that a lucid and a clear case for invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is established in the case. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, I am inclined to hold that the registration of the FIR by the police was wrong and that too, without exercising due caution. Therefore, the relief sought for in this petition to quash the crime registered against him is only to be allowed. Hence, Crime No. 760 of 2021 of Pavaratty police station is hereby quashed as prayed for. 14. The Crl. M.C. is accordingly allowed.