The Supreme Court on Sunday clarified that if the offence was a sequel of events starting from India and a part of it was completed abroad, the trial judge could proceed with regard to the offence so committed within the country without sanction from the Union government and wait for the permission for the proceeding about the part of the crime committed abroad, .
With the ruling, the apex court has put to rest the controversy about the scope of Section 188 of CrPC, which deals with the complaints made by Indians from abroad against fellow citizens for the offence covered under IPC. or the crime was a chain of events starting from India but completed on the foreign soil.
Parvathareddy Suneetha in her complaint from Botswana, where she joined her husband Thota Venkateswarulu after marriage in November 2005, had alleged that despite her parents paying him `12 lakhs cash, 45 sovereigns gold and spending `50,000 on some other traditions, her husband had put a further demand of `5 lakhs in Botswana and started “ill-treating” her after it could not be met.
The trial court though had taken cognisance of the case but refused to proceed further for the want of sanction form the Union government. The Aandhra Pradesh high court had upheld the decision.
The apex court, however, said that the trial for the offence related to the demand of dowry in India would continue against the husband and with regard to that made in Botswana, it would proceeded only after Suneetha obtained permission from the Central government despite the fact that her complaint sent from abroad to the local police was found to be perfectly right.