SHADILI Vs. UTHEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to quash the complaint copy of which is marked as Annexure Al, filed by the first respondent. The allegations made in the complaint are to the following effect. Petitioner was a businessman in Abu Dhabi. He approached the first respondent, the complainant, who was employed as Branch Manager of Al-Fatha Food Trading Company, Abu Dhabi and purchased Chicken meat on 20-9-1986, 26-9-1986 and 31-9-1986 on credit basis, after issuing cheques for 5,000 Dirhams, 4,500 Dirhams and 11,560 Dirhams. At the time of issuing the cheques the petitioner made the first respondent believe that there is sufficient cash balance in the bank and that the cheques can be encashed at any time. When the cheques were presented, the first respondent was told that there was no cash in the account of the petitioner. On enquiry the bank authorities informed that the petitioner had intimated them to stop all payments from bis account. The petitioner could not be found in Abu Dhabi. He bad left that country and came over to Kerala. The amount for which the first respondent was cheated was reimbursed by him to the company from out of his salary. The petitioner made the first respondent to believe that there was sufficient cash in bis account in the bank and dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver him the goods. But for the inducement, the first respondent would not have delivered the goods to the petitioner. The petitioner has thus committed the offence punishable under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was lodged before the Indian Embassy at Abu Dhabi and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum for investigation. The police did not complete the investigation on the said complaint. Hence the complaint annexure Al before court.

(2.) Petitioner wants the above complaint to be quashed on two grounds: (1) no sanction from the Central Government was obtained for the investigation of the alleged offence since the entire transaction took place out side the Indian territory. (2) The allegations made by the first respondent in the complaint do not make out an offence under the Indian Penal Code and hence the criminal court cannot proceed with the same. I will deal with these arguments in detail.

(3.) S.188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with offences committed outside India. Proviso to that Section reads: