2004 (11) TMI 609 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 188.
3. Responsibility to find the accused under Section 188.
4. Validity of the complaint filed by the Dubai-based bank.
5. High Court's rejection of the petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 188, which deals with offences committed outside India by Indian citizens or on Indian-registered ships or aircraft. The section allows such offences to be tried in India with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The core question is the meaning of "at which he may be found" and who is responsible for finding the accused-the complainant, the police, or the court.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 188:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad, arguing that no part of the cause of action occurred within its territorial jurisdiction. The High Court rejected this contention, stating that the court at Ghaziabad had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the place of business or residence of the petitioner or the complainant is irrelevant. The significant factor is the place of commission of the offence, and Section 188 creates a legal fiction deeming the place where the offender is found as the place of the offence.

3. Responsibility to Find the Accused under Section 188:
The court clarified that the responsibility to find the accused lies with the court, not the complainant or the police. The expression "at which he may be found" means the place where the accused appears voluntarily or is brought by the police in execution of arrest warrants. The court emphasized that it is not expected for a victim to ascertain the location of the accused before filing a complaint. The victim's convenience is prioritized, allowing them to approach any court in India.

4. Validity of the Complaint Filed by the Dubai-Based Bank:
The complaint alleged that the petitioner obtained loans from the bank, provided guarantees, and then absconded without repaying, thereby cheating and defrauding the bank. The petitioner sought to quash the complaint, arguing that it lacked jurisdictional basis. The court rejected this argument, stating that the complaint's averments were sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 188.

5. High Court's Rejection of the Petitioner's Challenge to the Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Special Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court reiterated that Section 188 allows any court in India to try an offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen if the accused is found within its jurisdiction. The court dismissed concerns about potential abuse of this provision, noting that the Code contains sufficient safeguards to address any misuse.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that the interpretation of Section 188 allows any competent court in India to try offences committed outside India by Indian citizens, prioritizing the victim's convenience over the accused's. The responsibility to find the accused lies with the court, and the place where the accused is found is deemed the place of the offence.