Skip navigation

Brief Overview : The Power To Try Crimes Committed Beyond The Territory Of India

Jul. 09, 2020   •   Architi Batra

[The author, Rishabh Jain is a 3rd Year Law student at Delhi Metropolitan Education]

INTRODUCTION

Although, the general law says that any crime committed within the territory of India shall be tried within India where the victim resides, or where it is suitable for the victim or where the jurisdiction of the police station or where the F.I.R. (First Information Report) as specified under Section-154 of ‘The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973’ herein referred to as the ‘CrPc, 1973’ was lodged or where the crime took place which would vary from the facts and circumstances of the case

What types of crimes can be committed beyond India and further, can then be tried in India?

The law enforcement authorities usually exercise their administration by way of enforcements or encroachments within their respective areas specified and that is within the nation. However, in certain cases, there are statutes which the legislators of our country made in order to keep the accused at bay and maintain a prosperous, healthy and peaceful society.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Though there are a plethora of laws and legal principles guiding the cases committed beyond India in which the Indian courts have the power and jurisdiction to try the cases. But as here we concerned about the Criminal law in particular then let us first take in the picture the ‘Indian Penal Code, 1860’ referred to herein as ‘I.P.C., 1860’.

I.P.C, 1860

1.) Section-3:- This section in particular talks about the Jurisdiction of the Indian Criminal Courts which they have over the Citizens of India both within and outside the territory of India. It simply means that an act or an omission constituting an offence as per the Indian law would be considered an offence even if it is committed outside Indian Territory.

Illustration

Manila, a resident of Uttam Nagar, Delhi goes for a trip with her friends at Phuket, Thailand and while travelling there made vulgar and defamatory statements in her blog about the Hotel’s staff where she was residing. In this case, the even the offence of Defamation was made by Manila at a foreign county about foreign persons, the Indian courts will have the jurisdiction to try that offence in India as per the Indian law.

2.) Section-4:- For the sake of brevity, this section exclusively talks about the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Indian courts that they have if the offence is committed by an Indian outside India or any foreigner in India weather at Land or High Seas or an Aircraft. The lawmakers has provided the option of trying the offence under this section either in India itself or in the country where the offence was committed by way of Extradition.

Illustration

Anumalika, a resident of Taiwan commits Perjury in India. The Indian court has the option to try the accused Anumalika in India as per their own laws or they can extradite the accused to the home country for the trial of the offence.

3.) Section- 18:- This section is important to understand the meaning of term ‘INDIA’ which specifies that it means the territory of India excluding the state of J&K (which after the recent amendment, the J&K has also become an integral part of India)

4.) Section – 40:- The section specifies about which sections mentioned denotes the term “offence” under the Code.

Thereby, we have acknowledged the fact that the prosecution of these crimes which are committed even beyond the Indian Territory can be the subject matter of the case of India.

C.R.P.C, 1973

The Code under Chapter- XIII talks about Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction, its trials and Inquiries

1.) Section – 187:- The section gives the power to issue warrants or summons for offences committed beyond the local jurisdiction of the court having the actual jurisdiction which also include the jurisdiction outside India where the magistrate can compel the person to produce before in the manner specified.

2.) Section – 188:- This section talks more or less talk on the same lines as the Section -, I.P.C., 1860 it specifies that when a person commits a crime outside India, he will be treated as if he has committed the offence at any place in India. One of the main objects is to protect the accused from trial more than once for the same offence at two different places which against the Constitutional principle of Double Jeopardy.

Though, no offence will be tried or inquired in India without the sanction of Central Government. “The place where the crime is committed” would be considered as the most important factor. It is almost impossible for the victim of an offence which is committed beyond India to search for the exact location of the accused and then approach the court. So, the said victim has a right to file the case in any court about the crime committed upon him.

CASE LAWS

Prabhat Chaturvedi v. State Of Andhra Pradesh. A.I.R. 2013 AP HC

There was a case where a couple married in India moved to Botswana. At the time of marriage, dowry was given to the husband’s family. In Botswana also, the wife claimed that she was mistreated by her husband for the demand of dowry. The husband argued that the court in Andhra Pradesh which the couple’s home region of India, cannot hear the complaints filed by the wife. The Supreme Court held that prosecution can take actions which happened in India but the crime committed outside India can only proceed after the approval of the government. So, in the first part, government approval did not come in the picture.

Om Hemrajini v. State of UP,

The accused obtained the loan from Dubai band and without discharging all his liabilities flee to India. The Bank filed a complaint in Ghaziabad where the Magistrate issued non- bailable warrant against the accused. A petition was filed which questioned the jurisdiction of the magistrate of Ghaziabad. The Court held that the victim can approach any court according to his/her convenience.

Fatima Bibi v. the State of Gujarat

The Son of Hanif Patel who was an appellant was a citizen of Mauritius and married to the respondent. Her daughter-in-law and son were residing in Kuwait. The petition was filed by the respondent claiming physical and mental harassment by her husband who was the first accused. An application was filed against the petition that it is not according to S.188 of CrPC and the same was dismissed. The appellant raised the contention that she is the citizen of Mauritius and this all happened in Kuwait. The entire proceedings were without jurisdiction, all actions taken by the court were without jurisdiction and in these cases Res- judicata is also not applicable. The appeal was allowed.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.


Liked the article ?
Share this: