Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Kishore Devji Sagar and Pravinchandra Devji Sagar, were original accused in RTC No. 165 of 2003 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. The complaint was filed by Mashreq Bank PSC, a Dubai-based bank, through its constituted attorney, alleging that the accused had opened a bank account in the name of 'Devji Puroshottam LLC' and availed loan facilities totaling DHS 6,625,000 by making false representations about their creditworthiness. The accused allegedly failed to repay the loan and fled to Dubai. The complainant contended that since the accused were Indian citizens, they were answerable in India under Section 188 CrPC. The learned Magistrate issued process on 13-05-2003 for offences under Sections 418, 420 read with 120-B or alternatively Section 34 IPC. The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the proceedings and the order issuing process. The High Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It noted that the entire transaction, including the opening of the account, availing of loans, and alleged misrepresentations, took place in Dubai. The only connection to Ahmednagar was that the accused had a residence there. The court held that under Section 188 CrPC, for offences committed outside India by Indian citizens, prior sanction of the Central Government is mandatory before a court in India can take cognizance. Since no such sanction was obtained, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The court also observed that the complaint did not disclose any offence committed within the territorial limits of the Ahmednagar court. Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal proceedings and the order issuing process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 188 CrPC - Offence committed outside India - Cognizance without sanction - Held that for offences committed outside India by Indian citizens, sanction under Section 188 CrPC is mandatory before taking cognizance; failure to obtain such sanction renders the proceedings void ab initio (Paras 5-7).
B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 418, 420, 120-B - Territorial Jurisdiction - Held that where the entire alleged transaction of loan and misrepresentation occurred in Dubai, the courts in India have no jurisdiction to try the case without compliance with Section 188 CrPC (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences allegedly committed in Dubai, and whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings in RTC No. 165 of 2003 and the order of issuance of process dated 13-05-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Section 188 CrPC
- Cheating
- Criminal conspiracy
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 17
Criminal Writ Petition No.562 of 2004
Mr N.C. Garud for petitioners, Mr L.B. Palod for respondent No.1, Mrs V.A. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent No.2
Kishore Devji Sagar and Pravinchandra Devji Sagar
Mashreq Bank PSC and The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and order issuing process in a complaint of cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (original accused) sought quashing of RTC No. 165 of 2003 and the order of issuance of process dated 13-05-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the learned Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences allegedly committed in Dubai, and that the proceedings were an abuse of process of law.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar had issued process on 13-05-2003 against the accused for offences under Sections 418, 420 read with 120-B or alternatively Section 34 IPC.
Issues
Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences allegedly committed in Dubai?
Whether the criminal proceedings and order issuing process are liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the entire transaction took place in Dubai and no part of the cause of action arose in Ahmednagar, hence the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Respondent argued that since the accused were Indian citizens, they were answerable in India under Section 188 CrPC, and the court at their usual place of residence (Ahmednagar) had jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
For offences committed outside India by Indian citizens, prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC is mandatory before a court in India can take cognizance. Without such sanction, the proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners(Original Accused ) have moved this Court with prayer for to quash and set aside the the case RTC No. 165 of 2003 and the order of issuance of process dated 13-05-2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Ahmednagar issuing the process against he accused for the offences punishable under Section 418, 420, read with Section 120-B or in the alternative under Section 34 of the Indian Penal code
According to the respondent complainant any Citizen of India committing offence punishable under under the Indian Law, even if he travels out of India, he is answerable in India and deemed to have committed the offence within India at the place which was his usual abode in India and the court having territorial jurisdiction can try the accused in view of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code
Procedural History
The complaint was filed by Mashreq Bank PSC through its constituted attorney before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. Verification statement was recorded on 12-05-2003, and process was issued on 13-05-2003. The petitioners then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.562 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking quashing of the proceedings. The judgment was reserved on 12-06-2013 and pronounced on 18-06-2013.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 418, 420, 120-B, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 188
