In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified that the sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not necessary to prosecute a case of rape alleged to have occurred in Oman but with its origins in India. The judgment was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen in the case of Rajesh Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 946 of 2024).
Background of the Case
The case revolves around an incident from May 2005, where the first accused allegedly promised the complainant a nursing job in Muscat. However, during her stay in Surat, the first accused reportedly raped and ill-treated her. Subsequently, in April 2018, the first accused again offered her a job in Muscat, which she accepted due to financial pressures. She was employed as a housemaid at the residence of the second accused, Rajesh Gopalakrishnan, who allegedly raped her on two occasions. The complainant was then sent back to India on June 12, 2015. The prosecution charged the accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 366, 370, 370(A)(2), 354(A)(1)(ii), 354(A)(2), 376(2)(K)(N), 506(1), and 420 read with 34 IPC.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the prosecution of crimes committed outside India requires the prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC. The petitioner, Rajesh Gopalakrishnan, argued that since the alleged overt acts occurred in Muscat, the trial could not proceed without such sanction. The defense cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Thota Venkateswaralu v. State of A.P. to support their claim.
Court’s Decision
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the petition, holding that the sanction under Section 188 CrPC was not required in this case. The court emphasized that the genesis of the crime began in India, and therefore, the prosecution could proceed without the Central Government’s approval. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, which clarified that if part of the offense occurred in India, the requirement for sanction under Section 188 CrPC does not apply.
Important Observations of the Court
Justice Badharudeen made several critical observations in his ruling:
1. Genesis of the Crime: “The prosecution has a definite case that, after sharing common intention between the 1st and 2nd accused, to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant, so as to make her available to have forceful sexual intercourse with the 2nd accused, the 2nd accused arranged a visa through the 1st accused and accordingly she was taken to Muscat on the guise of providing a job of a housemaid”.
2. Application of Section 188 CrPC: “Applying the ratio in Sartaj Khanโs case, in order to proceed with the trial, sanction provided under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is not necessary in the facts of this particular case”.
3. Seriousness of the Allegations: “Overall evaluation of the materials as discussed herein above would indicate that this is a matter where quashment cannot be considered restraining the prosecution from adducing evidence in support of the allegations, since the allegations positing commission of very serious offences are made out, prima facie”.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner/2nd Accused: Rajesh Gopalakrishnan, represented by Advocates P. Chandy Joseph and C.K. Vidyasagar.
– Respondents: State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor Renjith George.
– Complainant: Name withheld for privacy.
