Section 498A IPC offence abroad cannot be tried in India sans Central government sanction: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (which punishes marital cruelty to women) initiated against a man residing in Australia could not proceed in India without prior sanction from the Central Government..Justice A Badharudeen explained that Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) lays down that when it comes to offences committed outside India, prior sanction from the Central Government is required to prosecute the case in India. The Court added that if a part of such an offence had taken place in India, no such sanction would have been required to prosecute the accused in India.However, in this case, the Court found that all the alleged actions tied to the criminal case were said to have taken place in Australia.Therefore, the Court concluded that prosecution in India in relation to this case was invalid in the absence of prior Central Government sanction."The entire allegations, which would attract offences under Section 498A of IPC alleged to be committed by the 1st accused is outside India, and the matter definitely would come with the ambit of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present proceedings without obtaining prior sanction as contemplated under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is vitiated," the Court held. .The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a man accused of cruelty by his wife. The alleged acts of cruelty occurred in Australia when the couple resided there. The wife later filed a case against the husband in India.The accused husband (petitioner) challenged the registration of this criminal case by filing a petition before the High Court. .The petitioner's counsel argued that the criminal case initiated against him in India, for acts that allegedly took place in Australia, was invalid because sanction under Section 188, CrPC was not obtained. Section 188 of the CrPC stipulates that offences committed outside India by Indian citizens or on Indian-registered vessels require prior sanction from the Central Government before they can be tried in Indian courts..Meanwhile, the prosecution argued that although some of the acts of cruelty took place in Australia, there was an incident where the accused threatened the complainant (wife) through a telephone call while she was in India. The petition to quash the case was also opposed by the complainant's counsel..In its analysis, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand and noted that sanction from the Central Government would not have been required if even a part of the offence had taken place in India. However, it concluded that in the present case, since all the alleged acts happened in Australia, sanction was necessary.It ruled that the case fell under the ambit of Section 188, CrPC and allowed the plea to quash the criminal case registered in India against the petitioner..The Court, however, directed the trial court to proceed with the criminal case against the petitioner's relative (an accused in the same case) in India. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Thomas J Anakkallunkal, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Jayaraman S and Litty Peter.Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George appeared for the State.The complainant was represented by advocate Luke J Chirayil..[Read Order]