In a landmark judgment, an Australian citizen got acquitted from IPC 498a Fake Case on the grounds of NO JURISDICTION.
So as to prosecute foreign national, sanction of central government is essential. Indian Penal Code is applicable to the whole of India. Alleged offence committed by accused is within India. This offence is domestic offence and provisions are applicable to the citizens of India. However, neither informant nor accused are citizens of India. Hence, primafacie it appears that this court is not having jurisdiction to try the present matter. Hence, I am giving my finding to Point No.1 in the negative.Smt. S. J. Shinde – Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.10, Nagpur, Maharashtra
After scrutinizing the evidence of witnesses and as per Sec.498A of IPC, complainant herself admitted that she is Australian citizen. I.O. also corroborated her version regarding citizenship. Then before lodging report against any foreign national sanction of Central Government is essential. As per Sec. 188(b) provided that Previous sanction of Central Government was required which is not taken by I.O. However, there is nothing on record which shows that I.O. informed consulate regarding prosecution against accused. In case of foreign national, it is required to inform the concerned embassy but I.O. did not take efforts to inform the concerned embassy.Smt. S. J. Shinde – Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.10, Nagpur, Maharashtra
The informant herself deposed that she is foreign national. She is residing in India as a foreigner. However, if we consider in general sense that any husband will wish to stay along with his wife and children where ever he stays. In present case, accused is residing at Australia and by natural way if he is expecting that informant and his kids should reside with him then that is not illegal or unlawful and unjust. It is the duty of every wife to stay with her husband where ever he is serving or residing. The demand of accused to stay with him at abroad is not illegal or unjust.Smt. S. J. Shinde – Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.10, Nagpur, Maharashtra
It is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract the Sec.498A of IPC.Smt. S. J. Shinde – Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.10, Nagpur, Maharashtra
I also find that every matrimonial dispute on trifle reason in between husband and wife cannot be covered under the ambit of cruelty as defined u/s 498A of IPC. Therefore, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal. In the result, I answer point no.2 in negative.Smt. S. J. Shinde – Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.10, Nagpur, Maharashtra