IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1583 OF 2023 Tarun s/o Kewalkrushan Singla VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Another Mr. Ajinkya Kale i/b Talekar and Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. R. P. Gaur, APP for Respondent- State Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2026 P. C. : 1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present Petitioner seeks quashment of charge-sheet No. 313 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021 filed before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 0278/2021 dated 14.04.2021 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, District Jalna, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and quashment of proceedings bearing RCC No. 1103 of 2021 pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the Informant married Tarun Kewalkrishna Singla on 13.12.2018, in Mumbai, and the couple has a son out of this wedlock. The husband is employed as a Purchase Manager at Procter & Gamble in Bangkok, Thailand, while the Informant admittedly stayed with the Petitioner at Bangkok from January 2019 till her return to India and currently resides at her parental home in Jalna, Maharashtra. Following a peaceful initial period of two to three months after the wedding, the accused husband and mother-in-law began subjecting the Informant to ongoing verbal abuse, physical violence, and mental torture over domestic issues. The primary reason for the domestic cruelty is unlawful demand for money amounting to ₹25 Lakhs, under the pretense of buying a new car, purchasing a house, installing household furniture, and acquiring items for their child. Despite interventions and counseling by the Informant’s parents, the demands and harassment continued, accompanied by threats that they would cease the cohabitation if the sum was not paid. Unable to endure the continued torture, the Informant was forced to leave her matrimonial home and reside with her parents, leading to the filing of this First Information Report. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations are baseless, vague and made only to harass Petitioner and no offence is made out against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that previous application filed in this court came to be withdrawn at the stage before taking cognizance by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the said withdrawal of the Application has no bearing on the present case since now cognizance has been taken and in view of provisions of Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) the said order taking cognizance, is not tenable. He further submits that the supplementary statement is an afterthought story and given with malafide intention, only to make the offence triable in India without the required prior sanction of Central Government. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon judgement in case of Thota Venkateswaralu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 527 to support submission with regard to applicability of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. so also judgement in case of Digambar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 2019 to argue that offence under Section 498-A of IPC is not made out insofar as the allegations in the supplementary statement are concerned. To support his contentions, he further relies upon State of Haryana and Another Vs. Bhajanlal and Another, (1992) 1 Supp SCC 335 and Gorige Pentaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) SCC 531. 5. Learned APP and Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 /Informant strongly opposed the grant of any relief to the Petitioner. They submit that the since part of the offence is committed in India the offence can be tried, inquired into and very much within the ambit of law. 6. Learned Counsel for the Informant submitted that the supplementary statement indicates that part of offence has been committed in India and as such, the present case would not come within the ambit of section 188 Cr.P.C. and to support this contention he relied upon Sartaj Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2022) 13 SCC 136. He further argued offence under Section 323 and 504 of IPC are made out on the basis of supplementary statement and hence Section 188 of Cr.P.C. has no application to the case in hand. 7. At this point, it would be relevant to take note of Section 188 of Cr.P.C., which reads thus: 188. 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. Page 4 of 6 This provision indicates that in respect of offence committed outside India, such offence cannot be enquired into or tried in India, except previous sanction of Central Government. In view of judgment in case of Sartaj (supra), only in case where part of the offence has been committed in India, previous sanction of Central Government would not be required. 8. As far as the present case is concerned the Petitioner is a citizen of India and as per First Information Report alleged offence is committed elsewhere than in India i.e. Thailand, provision of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. would apply. It is pertinent to note that First Information Report does not indicate occurrence of any incident in India to attract offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Even if supplementary statement is considered, the assertions in respect of occurrences in India do not make out offence under Section 498-A of IPC. As such judgment in case of Sartaj (supra) has no application to the present case. Therefore, the previous sanction of the Central Government is necessary in this case. 9. Insofar as other offences invoked against the Petitioner are concerned, they are non-cognizable in nature. Therefore, once offence under Section 498-A of IPC which is cognizable, is not made applicable, question of registration of FIR qua other offences does not arise. Page 5 of 6 10. Thus, this is the case, wherein the offence cognizable in nature has been committed outside India and hence in absence of previous sanction of Central Government, trial of the same is impermissible. 11. In view of the above, Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’ and ‘B’. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb/a