Criminal Law Brainstorming Series Answer-2

Section-2 of the IPC relates to intra-territorial operation of IPC,and renders all

offences committed within the India,amenable to jurisdiction of local courts.In
the facts of present case,the offence,atleast in so far as it related to “taking of
dowry” has taken place withing the local jurisdiction of the courts at Banglore as
the marriage was solemnized in Banglore.Therefore there is no legal impediment
in taking cognizance for the offence under Section-3 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act,by the court at Banglore.

As regards offence under Section-498A of IPC,it is not disputed that the

harassment and cruelty has been meted out to the complainant primarily at
Australia.The usual principle no doubt is that criminal law is territorial in
operation and penalizes offences committed within the territory of India.However
an important exeption is carved out by Section-3 and 4 of IPC.Section-4 extends
the application of IPC beyond the territory of India with respect to Indian
citizens.In other words,an offence done by Indian,anywhere in the world,is made
culpable under the IPC.Section-3 engrafts a legal fiction,and deems such an
offence as if the same had been committed in India,for purpose of criminal
prosecution.Read together,the provision that emerges is: that an Indian
committing an offence anywhere in the world can be prosecuted in India under
IPC.

Turning back to the facts of the present case,it is clear that the accused persons
are Indian Nationals and can be prosecuted in India for an offence under Section-
498A of the IPC.
Having said that,there is one procedural impediment to their being summoned for
an offence under Section-498-A of IPC,in India.

Section-188 Crpc is the procedural counterpart of the more substantive provisions

i.e section-3 and 4 of the IPC.The impediment is placed by the proviso to Section-
188 of the Crpc.It provides for a mandatory sanction of the central govt before
taking a cognizance in an extra-territorial offence.In the facts of this case,there is
nothing on record to prove that such sanction has been received from the central
government.

Therefore,proceeding with regard to Section-3 of Dowry Prohibition act is proper

in eyes of law and with regard to section-498-A is illegal as against the law of the
land.

It is trite law that separate charge for separate offence is a rule and provisions
relating to joinder of charges are mere enabling provisions.Therefore the
magistrate could very well proceed vis-à-vis offence under section-3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and the whole trial need not to be brought to halt due to absence
of such sanction qua offence under section-498-A of Indian Penal Code.

Note- (Facts taken from Thota Venkateswarlu v/s State of A.P. (2011) 9 SCC
527,with some modifications)