Latest Judgments

Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

1. This Special Leave Petition is filed against an order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged offences were committed in the USA and in accordance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., sanction from the Central Government is required even for initiation of investigation of the crime.

(L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.)

 

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3978/2021, decided on August 2, 2021

 

Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar ____________________ Petitioner;

 

v.

 

State of Andhra Pradesh and Another _______________ Respondent(s).

 

(IA No. 64679/2021-Exemption From Filing O.T.)

 

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3978/2021; CRLP No. 379/2020; and IA No. 64679/2021

 

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

 

1. This Special Leave Petition is filed against an order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged offences were committed in the USA and in accordance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., sanction from the Central Government is required even for initiation of investigation of the crime. This Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. Tr. Principal Secretary reported in 2011 (9) SCC 527 categorically held that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by a citizen of India outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance. However, this Court makes it clear that the trial of the criminal case cannot commence without sanction being accorded under Section 188 Cr.P.C.

 

2. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by this Court in Thota Venkateswarlu (supra), we do not deem it proper to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

 

3. Needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground pertaining to sanction before the commencement of the trial.

 

———

 

 

Exit mobile version