TARUN KEWALKRUSHNA SINGLAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1583 OF 2023

                      Tarun s/o Kewalkrushan Singla
                                 VERSUS
                   The State of Maharashtra and Another

Mr. Ajinkya Kale i/b Talekar and Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. R. P. Gaur, APP for Respondent- State
Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

                                     CORAM        : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                     DATE         : SEPTEMBER 21, 2026



P. C. :


1.           This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.    The present Petitioner seeks quashment of charge-sheet No.

313 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021 filed before Learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Jalna in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 0278/2021

dated 14.04.2021 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna,

District Jalna, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, and

504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and

quashment of proceedings bearing RCC No. 1103 of 2021 pending

before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna.


2.           It is the case of the prosecution that the Informant married

Tarun Kewalkrishna Singla on 13.12.2018, in Mumbai, and the couple

                                 Page 1 of 6
has a son out of this wedlock. The husband is employed as a Purchase

Manager at Procter & Gamble in Bangkok, Thailand, while the

Informant admittedly stayed with the Petitioner at Bangkok from

January 2019 till her return to India and currently resides at her

parental home in Jalna, Maharashtra. Following a peaceful initial period

of two to three months after the wedding, the accused husband and

mother-in-law began subjecting the Informant to ongoing verbal abuse,

physical violence, and mental torture over domestic issues. The

primary reason for the domestic cruelty is unlawful demand for money

amounting to ₹25 Lakhs, under the pretense of buying a new car,

purchasing a house, installing household furniture, and acquiring items

for their child. Despite interventions and counseling by the Informant’s

parents, the demands and harassment continued, accompanied by

threats that they would cease the cohabitation if the sum was not paid.

Unable to endure the continued torture, the Informant was forced to

leave her matrimonial home and reside with her parents, leading to the

filing of this First Information Report.

3.         Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

allegations are baseless, vague and made only to harass Petitioner and

no offence is made out against the Petitioner. It is further submitted

that previous application filed in this court came to be withdrawn at


                                 Page 2 of 6
the stage before taking cognizance by the Trial Court. It is submitted

that the said withdrawal of the Application has no bearing on the

present case since now cognizance has been taken and in view of

provisions of Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short “Cr.P.C.”) the said order taking cognizance, is not tenable. He

further submits that the supplementary statement is an afterthought

story and given with malafide intention, only to make the offence

triable in India without the required prior sanction of Central

Government.

4.        Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon judgement in

case of Thota Venkateswaralu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Another, (2011) 9 SCC 527 to support submission with regard to

applicability of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. so also judgement in case of

Digambar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another,

2024 INSC 2019 to argue that offence under Section 498-A of IPC is

not made out insofar as the allegations in the supplementary

statement are concerned. To support his contentions, he further relies

upon State of Haryana and Another Vs. Bhajanlal and Another, (1992)

1 Supp SCC 335 and Gorige Pentaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

(2008) SCC 531.

5.        Learned APP and Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.


                             Page 3 of 6
2 /Informant strongly opposed the grant of any relief to the Petitioner.

They submit that the since part of the offence is committed in India the

offence can be tried, inquired into and very much within the ambit of

law.

6.         Learned Counsel for the Informant submitted that the

supplementary statement indicates that part of offence has been

committed in India and as such, the present case would not come

within the ambit of section 188 Cr.P.C. and to support this contention

he relied upon Sartaj Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2022) 13 SCC

136. He further argued offence under Section 323 and 504 of IPC are

made out on the basis of supplementary statement and hence Section

188 of Cr.P.C. has no application to the case in hand.

7.         At this point, it would be relevant to take note of Section

188 of Cr.P.C., which 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; 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.



                               Page 4 of 6
           This provision indicates that in respect of offence committed

outside India, such offence cannot be enquired into or tried in India,

except previous sanction of Central Government.      In view of judgment

in case of Sartaj (supra), only in case where part of the offence has

been committed in India, previous sanction of Central Government

would not be required.

8.         As far as the present case is concerned the Petitioner is a

citizen of India and as per First Information Report alleged offence is

committed elsewhere than in India i.e. Thailand, provision of Section

188 of Cr.P.C. would apply. It is pertinent to note that First Information

Report does not indicate occurrence of any incident in India to attract

offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Even if supplementary statement is

considered, the assertions in respect of occurrences in India do not

make out offence under Section 498-A of IPC.       As such judgment in

case of Sartaj (supra) has no application to the present case.

Therefore, the previous sanction of the Central Government is

necessary in this case.

9.         Insofar as other offences invoked against the Petitioner are

concerned, they are non-cognizable in nature. Therefore, once offence

under Section 498-A of IPC which is cognizable, is not made applicable,

question of registration of FIR qua other offences does not arise.


                               Page 5 of 6
10.        Thus, this is the case, wherein the offence cognizable in

nature has been committed outside India and hence in absence of

previous sanction of Central Government, trial of the same is

impermissible.

11.        In view of the above, Petition stands allowed in terms of

prayer clauses ‘A’ and ‘B’.



                                               ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb/a




                              Page 6 of 6