OM HEMARAJANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. S. Kulshrestha, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned A. G. A. and perused the materials on record.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been brought for quashing the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 6861 of 2003, Mashreq Bank Ltd. v. Om Hemarajani and Another, under Sections 415, 417, 418, 420 read with 120-B IPC, pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad and also the impugned order dated 6-10-2003 taking cognizance of the offences alongwith non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant. Although in this petition only the questions of territorial jurisdiction of Ghaziabad Courts and the sanction for the prosecution of the applicant have been urged, but it is necessary to set out briefly some of the facts which led to the filing of the complaint case in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad. Mashreq Bank, a public share holding company registered and incorporated at Dubari under the laws of United Arab Emirates (UAE), having its registered office at P. O. Box #1250, Dubai (UAE), which is also carrying on business all over the world, including India, brought a complaint against Sri Om Hemarajani (who is herein the petitioner) and Smt. Kavita Motwani with the allegations that they both having international project approached the complainant bank with the request to open an account and they represented that they were working for a company by the name of M/s. Tangerine Computers, which was carrying on business in trading and export of computers and its peripherals in UAE. They also represented for having full authority to open account and to avail credit facilities as they had power of attorney in their favour. They also executed various documents in proof of their ability to discharge the bank liability. Sri Om Hemarajani, the applicant also gave his personal continuing guarantee. But instead of discharging the same they absconded from UAE without liquidating their liability to the bank. They have cheated and defrauded the bank in obtaining the loan facilities knowing fully well that they had no intention to pay back the loan of the bank and fled from UAE. After absconding from UAE the applicant continued to make representation that he would repay the outstanding amount of the bank but those representations turned to be false. Consequently this complaint was brought for the offences under Sections 415, 417, 418, 420 and 120-B IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad from where it was transferred to the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad, who took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against the person arraigned in that complaint and also issued non- bailable warrants.

(3.) THE language of Section 188 of the Code and that of Sections 3 and 4 IPC plainly means that if at the time or the commission of the offence, the person committing is an Indian citizen, even if the offence is committed outside India, he is subjected to the jurisdiction of the Courts in India. THE rule enunciated in the section is based on the principle that qua citizen the jurisdiction of the Court is not lost by reason of the venue of the offence. This is not denied that the applicant is the citizen of India. Regarding the commission of the offence the plea had been taken by him that he has falsely been implicated. He simply represented to the bank as being the authorized representative for M/s. Tangerine Computers. From the allegations made in the complaint case prima facie offence is appearing against the applicant for the offences under Sections 415, 417, 418, 420 and 120-B IPC and so the provisions of Section 188 of the Code are applicable against him.