CrPC Sections 188 and 189

first of all u need t o understand the essence of this section what it wants to say ....if x goes to us or y goes to america from india then in what circumstances this sec 188  comes into action ???? do mail i will tell u in details..

THIS LEGAL POISTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO YOU

Thanks for replies! 

Then I wonder  how indian police will investigate these false allegations  and collect evidences that happened in foreign land ?There is a very good uncorrupted legal and police system in other countries too, the educated lady never used that system to save her from the cruelty caused by husband (but enjoyed her life by all the  means using husband's hard earned money), when she does not like her husband or his family  then come back to india and  file 498a complaint using the police and legal system as her own slaves to achieve her ill motives against the husband and his family.

Don't the police think this their own brain? Don't the indian police think that these 498a ladies make them fool?

If you are a foreigner, a simple reading of Section 188 of CrPC indicates its applicability exclusively to crimes perpetrated on “any ship or aircraft registered in India”. Likewise, a simple reading of your narrative indicates neither you nor your mother or wife/children are “any ship or aircraft registered in India”, unless I’m grossly mistaken. Relative to foreigners, I’m inclined to believe the statute refers primarily to acts of piracy, terrorism, smuggling, flesh trade and such. Local prosecutorial action would necessarily be contingent on previous sanction of the Central Government because, more likely than not, International Law comes into play here. They would be in a more knowledgeable position than local jurisdictions to determine whether any concurrent action is ensuing overseas (or being proposed), assessing legal viability for such remedies to be pursued at whichever venue, specifics of any liaison work required to enhance investigation, and deliberating on other pertinent and complex factors that determine a successful disposition of criminal trials of this magnitude.

 

If you are an Indian citizen domiciled in a foreign land, I believe, in my lay opinion, there might exist some valid argument whether you are still obliged to submit to laws applicable to a different jurisdiction (i.e., your Mother country) that are not within the purview of local convention; especially absent any real, lawful enforcement power of the country that proposed the law in the first place.

For instance, polygamy is a serious punishable offense in the US but not in India if you happen to be Muslim. So if a Muslim US citizen were to marry four women within a short period of time in India, only his first marriage would be recognized in the US; the remaining three wives would not be entitled to the lawful rights accorded to a spouse. In all likelihood, they would be denied an entry visa if they applied in their capacity of his wives. But his “crime” would not attract any punishment in his home country (US) as it was not committed there.

 

There exists a measure of comity amongst most civilized nations on reciprocal recognition of selected aspects of foreign laws, e.g., marriage as well as divorce from a foreign country, and provisions enforcing foreign judgments. But if marriage and/or divorce were to be initiated and granted in one’s (foreign) country of domicile, certain local prerequisites would have had been met and, when met, the ruling of the deciding court takes precedence and the union (or dissolution) is generally recognized universally.

 

This recognition is limited in Indian courts particularly in matters relative to IPC 498a claims and scams. Regardless, most all jurisdictions, including India, consider a divorce decree as res judicata = final! So why does one see a divorce matter, e.g., a voluntarily signed Seperation Agreement, Child Custody arrangements, etc., previously decided and unchallenged in the foreign ruling court, commonly re-litigated in India as though our courts exercise supersessive appellate authority over foreign courts in such matters?  Should this not be viewed as blatant violation of the “double jeopardy” protections and, thus, unconstitutional?

 

The courts respond with a persuasive, rational “exception to the rule” labeled as “legal precedence” which is another way of saying an extra-legislative Judge-made law. And who in his right mind would argue with a Judge?

 

I hate to rub salt in your wounds but yours is not a unique case. This is a common, unofficially sanctioned scheme our gangsters in uniform exploit to enhance their income sometimes even superseding the extortive profits of the alleged “victims”. It is only when courts take a stand against prosecutorial perjury as blatantly contemptuous and tantamount to defecating on the bench, will they send a clear message to prospective opportunists (especially the uniform-wearing variety) that there’s a heavy price to pay for clogging up our already clogged court system with bogus or exaggerated claims that promote extortion!

Until that miracle happens, I suggest you grab your ankles and pray it doesn’t hurt while you pay up!

 

Opening an old thread.. My 498a/406 which was filed in feb 2012 has been stayed from all further proceedings by HC using sec 188. HC has now asked the opp party to respond. Can someone please provide what kind of central govt. sanction is court looking for ?

Police has to obtain prior sanction from Central Govt as per sense of this section and if not obtained previously, entire investigation and further actions vitiate and its entire benefit goes to to the accused persons.

Check this recent SC judgment.  It clearly explains the CrPc188 in IPC498A.

Supreme Court of India
Thota Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P.Tr.Princl.Sec.& ... on 2 September, 2011
Author: A Kabir
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph, Surinder Singh Nijjar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.7640 OF 2008 THOTA VENKATESWARLU ... PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF A.P. TR. PRINCL.
SEC. & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

Section 188 Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted
hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any
offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central
Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates
that no sanction in terms of Section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision
to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be
required before the trial could commence.

11. Accordingly, upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the
Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond
the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore,
free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the
trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be
required.

12. It may also be indicated that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been extended to offences
committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof.
Accordingly, offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions
of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
13. Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to reject the
petitioner's prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007, we also make it clear
that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences
alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed
outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central
Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
14. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.