PUNEET OBEROI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, by means of present Application under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet dated 1.9.2013 and the summoning order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 2775 of 2013 titled as State v. Puneet Oberoi, under sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said Court. An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 (Smt. Seema-victim) against the accused-applicant on 30.7.2013 at Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Dehradun for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicant for the selfsame offences. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned, vide order dated 7.10.2013 and accused-applicant was summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. Aggrieved against the same, present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant.

(2.) According to the informant-victim, she was married to the applicant 12 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. Articles were given in the marriage to the best of her father's capacity. Everything went off well in the initial months, but, after some time, the applicant started, assaulting and abusing the informant/victim. The victim tolerated the same in the hope that everything will be set at right in future. The applicant started suspecting her and also started imposing unnecessary restrictions on her. When the FIR was lodged, the applicant was at Singapore. The couple was issueless. The victim thought to adopt a child but, the applicant did not agree to it. The applicant was medically diagnosed and it was revealed that he was unable to make his wife pregnant. The applicant came to Delhi to attend a marriage. Thereafter the applicant did not talk to the victim. Whenever the victim could try to talk to the applicant, he harassed her. The statement of the victim given to the Investigating Officer is also enclosed as Annexure-2 to the petition. The Investigating Officer also took pains to enquire about the alleged crime from victim in question-answer form. The other documents have also been brought on record in an effort to show that prima facie offences are made out against the applicant. As said earlier, after the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, to which the applicant was aggrieved and therefore, he filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Much emphasis is laid on section 188 Cr.P.C. by learned Counsel for the applicant that section 188 Cr.P.C. deals with the offence committed outside India. It says that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere or 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. The proviso to section 188 Cr.P.C. says that no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.