S.S.KULSHRESTHA, J. - (1.) 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 Code of Criminal Procedure (in shore '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, 148, 420 read with 120-B IPC, pending in the court of Ghaziabad and also the impugned order dated 6.10.2003 taking cognizance of the offences along with 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 the facts which led to the filing of the complaint case in the court of Special Judge Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad. Mashreq Bank, a public share holding company registered and incorporated at Dubai under the laws of United Arab Emirates (UAE), having its registered office at P.O. Box No. 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 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 representation turned to false. Consequently this complaint was brought for the offences under Sections 415, 417, 148, 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. It has been contended by the applicant that this is the admitted position that at the relevant time he has working in a company by the name of M/s. Tangerine Computers in UAE dealing in peripherals. That was the proprietorship concern of which Sri Abdulla Mohd. Khamis Abdulia Mohd. was the proprietor. Applicant represented to the company only in the capacity of having power of attorney and not in personal capacity. He had falsely been dragged into this offence. No cause of action or any part thereof has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Ghaziabad. Applicant is not residing within the jurisdiction of that court nor the complainant had any office there at Ghaziabad. Thus Ghaziabad court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. In as much the cognizance is also barred for the want of legal sanction under Section 188 of the Code.
(3.) THE diverse contentions give rise to the preliminary questions that (i) whether the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the offences indicated above against the Indian citizen who is said to have committed offence there at Dubai. UAE and (ii) whether the sanction of the Central Government for the prosecution of applicant is necessary. To appropriate an answer to these contentions it shall be useful to refer the relevant provisions as contained under Section 188 of the Code and also Sections 3 and 4 of the IPC. They read as under : Section 188 Cr.P.C. 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. Section 3 I.P.C. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India. - Any person liable, by any Indian Law, to be tried for offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India. Section 4 I.P.C. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences. - The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by - (1) any citizen of India in any place with and beyond India; (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Explanation. - In this section the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code. ;