Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1747 (KER)

Midhun Dileep v. State of Kerala

2025-07-01

G GIRISH

body2025
ORDER : G.GIRISH, J. The sole accused in C.C.No.62/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The allegation against him is that he committed offence under section 498A I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner who married the de facto complainant, started subjecting the de facto complainant to physical and mental cruelty during the period from 28.10.2018 to 06.09.2021 while both of them were residing at Canada. The case has been registered by the Thadiyittaparamba Police pursuant to a complaint sent by e-mail by the de facto complainant from Canada to the office of the Range D.I.G of Police, Ernakulam. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Thadiyittaparamba filed final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad alleging the commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the prosecution against him is bad for want of sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C . For the above reason, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are sought to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 5. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner got his marriage with the de facto complainant registered at Sub Registrar’s Office, Perumbavoor on 02.03.2016 and went to Canada. Thereafter, he is said to have returned to India and performed the marriage ceremonies with the de facto complainant on 05.09.2017 at Chottanikkara Temple. On 12.09.2017, the de facto complainant and the petitioner admittedly went to Canada and started residing together there. It is thereafter that the petitioner allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to physical and mental cruelty. 6. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the offence involved in this case was committed in Canada during the period when the petitioner and the de facto complainant were residing together there. It is thereafter that the petitioner allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to physical and mental cruelty. 6. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the offence involved in this case was committed in Canada during the period when the petitioner and the de facto complainant were residing together there. It is categorically stated by the de facto complainant in her statement to the police, as well as to the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C , that the incidents of physical and mental torture from the petitioner took place while she was residing at Canada after she and the petitioner left India on 12.09.2017 after the formal marriage ceremonies performed at Chottanikkara Temple on 05.09.2017. It is also stated by the de facto complainant that the Canadian Police have proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint preferred by her, and that she had later on withdrawn the above case at Canada as per the advice of her lawyers at Canada and India that there need not be two proceedings, one at Canada and the other in India, for the same incident. There is absolutely nothing in the statements of the de facto complainant about any incident of physical and mental cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner while both of them were in India. Nor could it be said that the acts of the petitioner at Canada were the continuation of any harassment which he inflicted upon the de facto complainant in India. In that view of the matter, it has to be concluded that the present case relates to offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen. 7. Section 188 Cr.P.C deals with the situation when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India. The aforesaid provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience and easy reference: “ 188. Offence committed outside India. 7. Section 188 Cr.P.C deals with the situation when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India. The aforesaid provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience and easy reference: “ 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.” 8. It is clear from the aforesaid Section that an Indian citizen who commits offence outside India is liable to be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India where he may be found. However, the proviso to the aforesaid Section puts the embargo upon enquiry or trial in respect of such offence without sanction from the Central Government. 9. As far as the present case is concerned, no sanction as required under Section 188 Cr.P.C has been obtained for the prosecution of the petitioner. To a specific query from the Court, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the instructions received by him, no application for sanction for the conduct of trial against the petitioner in this case, is pending consideration of the Central Government. In that view of the matter, the continuation of the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.62/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad could only be termed as an abuse of process of court. Needless to say that the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him, is well founded. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner (accused) in C.C.No.62/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad which arose out of Crime No.768/2021 of Thadiyittaparamba Police Station, are hereby quashed.