The said complaint was forwarded to the Women's Cell in Patiala, which made a detailed inquiry into the allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the appellant. After such inquiry, the Women's Cell came to the conclusion that even in spite of the periodical differences between the appellant and the respondent No.2, they continued to maintain their relationship as husband and wife. From the report it appears that even after she left Gujarat, at the instance of her husband she returned to Gujarat in January 2006, and, thereafter, they visited Mount Abu, Bombay, Shirdi, Udaipur, Jaipur, Delhi and Gandhinagar, and both of them even went to Ambala to attend the retirement function of her mother-in-law, but after reaching Ambala she left for Patiala 4 instead of going with the appellant to the Zirakpur. The Women's Cell also found that the respondent No.2 had great love for her parents and as a result she wanted to stay with them more often. Even on the question of dowry, it was found that the entire complaint had been exaggerated and that the respondent No.2 was determined to teach her husband and his family members a lesson by levelling serious allegations against them. The ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Women's Cell was that nothing had come out from the inquiry to prove the demand of dowry and issuance of threat, and that the dispute was of a civil nature which did not call for any action by the local police at the said stage.

                                             REPORTABLE










              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA






             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION






             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1709  OF 2011


      (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.7924 of 2008)










Bhushan Kumar Meen                       ...    Appellant  






           Vs.






State of Punjab and Ors.                 ...    Respondents










                     J U D G M E N T










ALTAMAS KABIR,J.










1.     Leave granted.










2.     The appellant, who had all along been appearing 






       in   person,   was   represented   by   counsel,   Mr. 






       Vijay K. Aggarwal, at the time of final hearing 



                                2








      of   the   appeal,   which   is   directed   against   the 






      judgment   and   order   dated   27.8.2008   passed   by 






      the   Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court   in   Crl.M. 






      No.13709   of   2007,   dismissing   the   appellant's 






      application   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   for 






      quashing   the   FIR   No.9   dated   10.1.2007   of   P.S. 






      Patiala, filed by his wife, the respondent No.2 






      herein. 










3.    The   appellant's   marriage   was   solemnized   with 






      the   respondent   No.2   on   27.11.2004   as   per   Sikh 






      rites.     After   their   marriage,   the   couple   went 






      to   Gujarat   where   the   appellant   was   employed 






      with   Patronet   L.N.G.   Limited   in   District 






      Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband 






      and   wife,   though   no   child   was   born   out   of   the 






      said   wedlock.     Subsequently,   differences   arose 






      between   the   appellant   and   the   respondent   No.2 






      which   resulted   in   a   complaint     being   made   by 






      the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior 



                        3








Superintendent   of   Police,   Patiala,   requesting 






that a criminal case be registered against the 






appellant   under   Sections   406   and   498-A   IPC. 






The said complaint was forwarded to the Women's 






Cell in Patiala, which made a detailed inquiry 






into   the   allegations   made   by   the   respondent 






No.2   against   the   appellant.          After   such 






inquiry,   the   Women's   Cell   came   to   the 






conclusion that even in spite of the periodical 






differences   between   the   appellant   and   the 






respondent   No.2,   they   continued   to   maintain 






their   relationship   as   husband   and   wife.     From 






the report it appears that even after she left 






Gujarat,   at   the   instance   of   her   husband   she 






returned   to   Gujarat   in   January   2006,   and, 






thereafter,   they   visited   Mount   Abu,   Bombay, 






Shirdi, Udaipur, Jaipur, Delhi and Gandhinagar, 






and both of them even went to Ambala to attend 






the   retirement   function   of   her   mother-in-law, 






but after reaching Ambala she left for Patiala 



                                          4








      instead   of   going   with   the   appellant   to   the 






      Zirakpur.  The Women's Cell also found that the 






      respondent No.2 had great love for her parents 






      and   as   a   result   she   wanted   to   stay   with   them 






      more often.   Even on the question of dowry, it 






      was   found   that   the   entire   complaint   had   been 






      exaggerated   and   that   the   respondent   No.2   was 






      determined to teach her husband and his family 






      members         a         lesson         by         levelling         serious 






      allegations   against   them.                            The   ultimate 






      conclusion   arrived   at   by   the   Women's   Cell   was 






      that   nothing   had   come   out   from   the   inquiry   to 






      prove   the   demand   of   dowry   and   issuance   of 






      threat,   and   that   the   dispute   was   of   a   civil 






      nature which did not call for any action by the 






      local police at the said stage.










4.    Subsequently, a further inquiry was held by the 






      Superintendent   of   Police,   Patiala,   who   despite 






      taking   into   consideration   the   report   filed   by 



                              5








      the   Women's   Cell   Patiala,   came   to   the 






      conclusion   that   the   respondent   No.2   had   been 






      harassed by the appellant and her father-in-law 






      and mother-in-law for not meeting the demand of 






      dowry   and   suggested   action   to   be   taken   under 






      Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of 






      the   Dowry   Prohibition   Act,   1961.     However,   on 






      receipt   of   the   said   report,   the   Senior 






      Superintendent   of   Police,   Patiala,   met   the 






      appellant   and   the   respondent   No.2   and   was   of 






      the view that the matter did not appear to be a 






      case   of   demand   of   dowry   and   the   allegations 






      needed to be checked again for evidence, though 






      the ingredients of Section 498-A could be true. 






      The   Superintendent   of   Police,   Patiala,   was 






      directed   to   re-verify   and   substantiate   the 






      evidence.










5.    After   further   inquiry,   the   Superintendent   of 






      Police, once again came to the conclusion that 



                                6








      the   appellant   had   harassed   the   respondent   No.2 






      which   merited   the   registration   of   a   case 






      against   the   appellant   under   Section   498-A   IPC. 






      Upon   the   case   being   registered,   the   appellant 






      filed   Criminal   Misc.   No.13709   of   2007   under 






      Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR.   The 






      matter   was   heard   by   the   learned   Single   Judge, 






      who,   by   his   order   dated   27.8.2008,   dismissed 






      the   application   filed   by   the   appellant   for 






      quashing   of   the   FIR   and   held   that   in   view   of 






      the   specific   allegations   contained   therein,   no 






      ground for quashing the same had been made out 






      and the appellant would be at liberty to set up 






      the plea in defence at the appropriate stage of 






      the trial.










6.    Aggrieved   by   the   said   order   of   the   learned 






      Single   Judge,   the   appellant   filed   the   Special 






      Leave Petition out of which the present appeal 






      arises.



                               7










7.    Appearing   for   the   appellant,   Mr.   Vijay   K. 






      Aggarwal,   learned   Advocate,   submitted   that   at 






      every   stage   the   appellant   had   made   sincere 






      attempts   to   make   the   marriage   with   the 






      respondent   No.2   work,   but   at   every   stage   such 






      efforts of the appellant had been resisted. It 






      was submitted that the appellant had agreed to 






      live with the respondent No.2 in a house which 






      was   separate   from   the   house   in   which   his 






      parents   lived,   since   it   was   one   of   the 






      complaints   of   the   respondent   No.2   that   he   was 






      paying   more   attention   to   his   parents   than   to 






      her.        According   to   the   learned   counsel 






      appearing   for   the   appellants,   all   the   attempts 






      made by the appellant to make the marriage work 






      proved to be futile on account of the attitude 






      of the respondent No.2, and even the complaint 






      made   against   him   was   a   fallout   thereof, 



                               8








      although, there was no truth whatsoever in any 






      of the allegations made in the FIR.










8.    On behalf of the respondent No.2 an attempt was 






      made to show that the appellant is a person who 






      was only interested in harassing the respondent 






      No.2   for   bringing   dowry.     However,   the   said 






      allegations do not bear scrutiny in view of the 






      report filed by the Women's Cell, Patiala that 






      the   appellant   and   the   respondent   No.2   had 






      visited   various   places   all   over   the   country 






      together,   which,   according   to   the   learned 






      counsel   for   the   appellant,   clearly   proves   that 






      the appellant and the respondent No.2 continued 






      to   maintain   a   normal   relationship   of   husband 






      and wife despite their moments of disagreement. 






      Coupled   with   the   above,   is   the   observation   of 






      the   Senior   Superintendent   of   Police,   Patiala, 






      that   after   meeting   the   couple   he   was   of   the 






      view that the matter did not relate to a dowry 



                                9








       offence and that the dispute appeared to be of 






       a civil nature.  










9.     The complaint made by the respondent No.2 does 






       not, in our view, make out a case under Section 






       498-A IPC and appears to have been filed by the 






       respondent   No.2   based   on   misunderstandings 






       between   the   parties   prompting   the   respondent 






       No.2   to   attack   the   appellant   for   something 






       which   is   likely   to   have   occurred   during   their 






       stormy marriage.










10.    In   our   view,   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the 






       High Court did not appreciate the nature of the 






       on   and   off   relationship   between   the   appellant 






       and   the   respondent   No.2,   which   caused   him   to 






       dismiss   the   appellant's   application   under 






       Section   482   Cr.P.C.   on   the   ground   that   there 






       were serious allegations in the FIR which have 






       been registered against the appellant regarding 






       his   alleged   cruelty   and   maltreatment   of   the 



                                 10








       respondent   No.2   and   even   misappropriation   by 






       him.










11.    We   are   unable   to   agree   with   the   reasoning   of 






       the learned Single Judge, since from the entire 






       records   available   it   is   clear   that   the 






       complaint   made   by   the   respondent   No.2   did   not 






       make   out   a   prima   facie   case   to   go   to   trial 






       under Section 498-A IPC.










12.    In   such   circumstances,   we   are   inclined   to 






       accept   Mr.   Aggarwal's   submissions   that   no 






       offence   under   Section   498-A   IPC   had   been   made 






       out   against   the   appellant   and   the   complaint 






       was,   therefore,   liable   to   be   rejected   and   the 






       FIR was also liable to be quashed.






13.    The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned 






       order   of   the   High   Court   is   set   aside   and   the 






       FIR   lodged   by   the   respondent   No.2   against   the 






       appellant, and all the proceedings taken on the 






       basis thereof, are quashed.



                        11










                               ............................................................J.


                               (ALTAMAS KABIR)










                               ............................................................J.


                             (CYRIAC JOSEPH)










                               ............................................................J.


                              (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)










New Delhi,


Dated: 02.09.2011.

WHETHER SANCTION NECESSARY – FOR DOMESTIC OFFENCES COMMITTED OUT SIDE INDIA-The Petitioner, Thota Venkateswarlu, was married to the Respondent No.2, Parvathareddy Suneetha, on 27th November, 2005, as per Hindu traditions and customs in the Sitharama Police Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. At the time of marriage 12 lakhs in cash, 45 sovereigns of gold and 50,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam is alleged to have been given to the Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the husband, the mother-in-law and other relatives of the husband. 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.

                                               REPORTABE










               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.










1.     This Special Leave Petition is directed against 






the   judgment   and   order   dated   27th  August,   2008, 






passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Andhra   Pradesh   at 



                                           2








Hyderabad   in   Criminal   Petition   No.3629   of   2008 






dismissing   the   Petition   filed   by   the   Petitioner 






under         Section         482         Criminal            Procedure         Code 






(`Cr.P.C.'   for   short)   for   quashing   the   proceedings 






in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 pending before the 






Additional   Munsif   Magistrate,   Addanki.     This   case 






raises   certain   interesting   questions   of   law   and   to 






appreciate the same, some of the facts are required 






to be reproduced.  










2.    The          Petitioner,            Thota         Venkateswarlu,               was 






married   to   the   Respondent   No.2,   Parvathareddy 






Suneetha,   on   27th          November,   2005,   as   per   Hindu 






traditions   and   customs   in   the   Sitharama   Police 






Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra 






Pradesh.     At   the   time   of   marriage                        12   lakhs   in 






cash,   45   sovereigns   of                    gold   and          50,000/-   as 






Adapaduchu  Katnam  is  alleged  to  have  been  given  to 






the   Accused   Nos.1   to   4,   who   are   the   husband,   the 






mother-in-law   and   other   relatives   of   the   husband. 



                               3








According   to   the   Respondent   No.2,   the   Petitioner 






left   India   for   Botswana   in   January   2006   without 






taking   her   along   with   him.   However,   in   February, 






2006,  the  Respondent  No.2  went  to  Botswana  to  join 






the   Petitioner.   While   in   Botswana,   the   Respondent 






No.2   is   alleged   to   have   been   severely   ill-treated 






by the Petitioner and apart from the above, various 






demands   were   also   made   including   a   demand   for 






additional   dowry   of      5   lakhs.   On   account   of   such 






physical   and   mental   torture   not   only   by   the 






Petitioner/husband,   but   also   by   his   immediate 






relatives, who continued to demand additional dowry 






by   way   of   phone   calls   from   India,   the   Respondent 






No.2 addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of 






Police,   Ongole,   Prakasam   District,   Andhra   Pradesh, 






from   Botswana   and   the   same   was   registered   as   Case 






(Crl.)   No.25   of   2007   under   Sections   498-A   and   506 






Indian   Penal   Code   (`I.P.C.'   for   short)   together 






with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 



                                        4








1986,   by   the   Station   House   Officer,   Medarametla 






Police   Station,   on   the   instructions   of   the 






Superintendent   of   Police,   Prakasam   District.     Upon 






investigation   into   the   complaint   filed   by   the 






Respondent         No.2,         the         Inspector         of         Police, 






Medarametla,   filed   a   charge-sheet   in   CC   No.307   of 






2007   in   the   Court   of   the                Additional   Munsif 






Magistrate,   Addanki,   Prakasam   District,   under 






Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 






of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioner 






and   his   father,   mother   and   sister,   who   were   named 






as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4.   The learned Magistrate 






took   cognizance   of   the   aforesaid   case   and   by   his 






order dated 19th February, 2007, ordered issuance of 






summons against the accused.   










3.    The   cognizance   taken   by   the   learned   Magistrate 






was  questioned  by  the  Petitioner  and  the  other  co-






accused   before   the   Andhra   Pradesh   High   Court   in 






Criminal   Petition   Nos.3629   and   2746   of   2008 



                                5








respectively  and  a  prayer  was  made  for  quashing  of 






the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 






Procedure.     The   High   Court   by   its   order   dated   27th 






August,   2008,   allowed   Criminal   Petition   No.2746   of 






2008   filed   by   the   Accused   Nos.2   to   4   and   quashed 






the   proceedings   against   them.     However,   Criminal 






Petition   No.3629   of   2008   filed   by   the   Petitioner 






herein   was   dismissed.   The   present   Special   Leave 






Petition  is  directed  against  the  said  order  of  the 






High   Court   rejecting   the   Petitioner's   petition 






under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   and   declining   to   quash 






Complaint   Case   No.307   of   2007   initiated   against 






him. 










4.    The submissions made by the learned counsel for 






the   Petitioner   before   this   Court   have   raised 






certain   important   questions   which   warrant   the 






attention of this Court.  



                                 6








5.    It   has   been   submitted   on   behalf   of   the 






Petitioner   that   as   will   appear   from   the   complaint 






made   by   the   Respondent   No.2   to   the   Superintendent 






of   Police,   Ongole,   Prakasam   District,   Andhra 






Pradesh   on   22nd  March,   2007,   no   grounds   had   been 






made   out   therein   to   continue   with   the   proceedings 






in   India,   having   regard   to   the   provisions   of 






Section 188 Cr.P.C., which provides as follows :-










      "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 



                               7








      with   the   previous   sanction   of   the   Central 


      Government." 










6.    Learned   counsel   urged   that   Section   188   Cr.P.C. 






recognizes   that   when   an   offence   is   committed 






outside India by a citizen of India, he would have 






to   be   dealt   with   as   if   such   offence   had   been 






committed in any place within India at which he may 






be   found.   Learned   counsel,   however,   laid   stress   on 






the   proviso   which   indicates   that   no   such   offence 






could   be   inquired   into   or   tried   in   India  except 






with   the   previous   sanction   of   the   Central 






Government     [Emphasis   Supplied].   Learned   counsel 






submitted   that   in   respect   of   an   offence   committed 






outside India, the same could not be proceeded with 






without previous sanction of the Central Government 






and  that,  accordingly,  even  if  any  of  the  offences 






was   allegedly   committed   inside   India,   trial   in 






respect   of   the   same   could   continue,   but   the   trial 






in   respect   of   the   offences   committed   outside   India 



                               8








could   not   be   continued,   without   the   previous 






sanction of the Central Government.  










7.    On behalf of the Respondents it was urged that 






a   part   of   the   alleged   offences   relating   to   the 






Dowry  Prohibition  Act  did  appear  to  have  arisen  in 






India,   even   at   the   initial   stage   when   various 






articles,   including   large   sums   of   cash   and 






jewellery were given in dowry by the father of the 






Respondent   No.2.     It   was   submitted   that   since   a 






part of the cause of action had arisen in India on 






account  of  alleged  offences  under  Sections  3  and  4 






of   the   Dowry   Prohibition   Act,   1968,   the   learned 






Magistrate trying the said complaint could also try 






the   other   offences   alleged   to   have   been   committed 






outside   India   along   with   the   said   offences. 






Reliance   was   placed   on   the   decision   of   this   Court 






in  Ajay Aggarwal  vs.  Union of India & Ors.  [(1993) 






3 SCC 609], wherein it had been held that obtaining 






the previous sanction of the Central Government was 



                                9








not   a   condition   precedent   for   taking   cognizance   of 






offences,   since   sanction   could   be   obtained   before 






trial begins.  










8.    The question which we have been called upon to 






consider   in   this   case   is   whether   in   respect   of   a 






series   of   offences   arising   out   of   the   same 






transaction,   some   of   which   were   committed   within 






India   and   some   outside   India,   such   offences   could 






be tried together, without the previous sanction of 






the Central Government, as envisaged in the proviso 






to Section 188 Cr.P.C.










9.    From the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 






in   the   present   case,   it   is   clear   that   the   cases 






relating   to   alleged   offences   under   Section   498-A 






and  506  I.P.C.  had  been  committed  outside  India  in 






Botswana,   where   the   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent 






No.2   were   residing.     At   best   it   may   be   said   that 






the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the 



                                    10








Dowry         Prohibition         Act         occurred         within         the 






territorial   jurisdiction   of   the   Criminal   Courts   in 






India  and  could,  therefore,  be  tried  by  the  Courts 






in   India   without   having   to   obtain   the   previous 






sanction   of   the   Central   Government.     However,   we 






are   still   left   with   the   question   as   to   whether   in 






cases   where   the   offences   are   alleged   to   have   been 






committed   outside   India,   any   previous   sanction   is 






required   to   be   taken   by   the   prosecuting   agency, 






before the trial can commence.  










10.    The   language   of   Section   188   Cr.P.C.   is   quite 






clear   that   when   an   offence   is   committed   outside 






India   by   a   citizen   of   India,   he   may   be   dealt   with 






in   respect   of   such   offences   as   if   they   had   been 






committed   in   India.                    The   proviso,   however, 






indicates that such offences could be inquired into 






or   tried   only   after   having   obtained   the   previous 






sanction   of   the   Central   Government.  As   mentioned 






hereinbefore,   in  Ajay   Aggarwal's   case   (supra),   it 



                                           11








was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is 






not   a   condition   precedent   for   taking   cognizance   of 






an   offence   and,   if   need   be,   it   could   be   obtained 






before   the   trial   begins.     Even   in   his   concurring 






judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows :-










           "29.  Language   of   the   section   is   plain   and 


           simple.   It   operates   where   an   offence   is 


           committed   by   a   citizen   of   India   outside   the 


           country.   Requirements   are,   therefore,   one   -- 


           commission of an offence; second -- by an Indian 


           citizen;   and   third   --   that   it   should   have   been 


           committed outside the country."










           Although   the   decision   in  Ajay   Aggarwal's   case 






(supra)   was   rendered   in   the   background   of   a 






conspiracy   alleged   to   have   been   hatched   by   the 






accused,   the   ratio   of   the   decision   is   confined   to 






what   has   been   observed   hereinabove   in   the 






interpretation   of   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 



                               12








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 



                                13








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 



                              14








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.  










                                    ...............................................................J.


                                             (ALTAMAS KABIR)










                                    ...............................................................J.


                                             (CYRIAC JOSEPH)










                                    ...............................................................J.


                                    (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)


New Delhi,


Dated: 02.09.2011. 

APEX COURT HOLD ITS PROTECTED HANDS AROUND THE HUMILIATED CANDLE LIFE OF SEX WORKERS A STEP AHEAD TO DO REQUIRED JUSTICE.

                                       1



                                                    REPORTABLE



                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2010



Budhadev Karmaskar                                  ..         Appellant

                 -versus-

State of West Bengal                                ..         Respondent



                                  O R D E R


               "Pinha tha daam-e-sakht qareeb aashiyaan ke
         
               Udhne hi na paaye the ki giraftaar hum hue"


                                               Mirza Ghalib




1.      This exercise was initiated by us by our order dated

14th February 2011. By that order we dismissed the appeal

of   the   appellant,   who   was   convicted   for   murdering   a   sex

worker in a red light area in Kolkata by battering her head

repeatedly   against   the   wall   and   the   floor   of   a   room.

Having dismissed the appeal we  suo motu  converted the case

into   a   PIL   by   the   same   order   in   order   to   address   the

problems of sex workers in the country.





2.      In our order dated 14th February, 2011 we observed:


                                      2


            "This   is   a   case   of   brutal   murder   of   a   sex
      worker.  Sex workers are also human beings and no
      one   has   a   right   to   assault   or   murder   them.     A
      person   becomes   a   prostitute   not   because   she
      enjoys it but because of poverty.   Society must
      have   sympathy   towards   the   sex   workers   and   must
      not look down upon them.  They are also entitled
      to a life of dignity in view of Article 21 of the
      Constitution.

            In   the   novels   and   stories   of   the   great
      Bengali   writer   Sharat   Chandra   Chattopadhyaya,
      many prostitutes have been shown to be women of
      very   high   character,   e.g.,   Rajyalakshmi   in
      'Shrikant', Chandramukhi in 'Devdas', etc.

            The plight of prostitutes has been depicted
      by   the   great   Urdu   poet   Sahil   Ludhianvi   in   his
      poem   'Chakle'   which   has   been   sung   in   the   Hindi
      film   Pyasa   "Jineh   Naaz   Hai   Hind   Par   wo   kahan
      hain"   (simplified   version   of   the   verse   'Sana
      Khwan-e-taqdees-e-Mashrik Kahan Hain').

            We   may   also   refer   to   the   character   Sonya
      Marmelodova in Dostoyevsky's famous novel 'Crime
      and Punishment'.  Sonya is depicted as a girl who
      sacrifices   her   body   to   earn   some   bread   for   her
      impoverished family.

            Reference may also be made to Amrapali, who
      was a contemporary of Lord Buddha".



3.    We further observed :

            "Although we have dismissed this Appeal, we
      strongly   feel   that   the   Central   and   the   State
      Governments through Social Welfare Boards should
      prepare   schemes   for   rehabilitation   all   over   the
      country for physically and sexually abused women
      commonly known as prostitutes   as we are of the
      view   that   the   prostitutes   also   have   a   right   to
      live   with   dignity   under   Article   21   of   the
      Constitution   of  India   since  they   are  also   human
      beings   and   their   problems   also   need   to   be
      addressed.




                  As   already   observed   by   us,   a   woman   is
      compelled   to   indulge   in   prostitution   not   for


                                     3


      pleasure but because of abject poverty. If such a
      woman   is   granted   opportunity   to   avail     some
      technical   or   vocational   training,   she   would   be
      able   to   earn   her   livelihood   by   such   vocational
      training   and   skill     instead   of   by   selling   her
      body.

                   Hence,   we   direct   the   Central   and   the
      State   Governments   to   prepare   schemes   for   giving
      technical/vocational training to sex workers and
      sexually   abused   women   in   all   cities   in   India.
      The   schemes   should   mention   in   detail   who   will
      give   the   technical/vocational   training   and   in
      what manner they can be rehabilitated and settled
      by  offering   them  employment.   For  instance,   if  a
      technical training is for some craft like sewing
      garments, etc. then some arrangements should also
      be made for providing a market for such garments,
      otherwise they will remain unsold and unused, and
      consequently the woman will not be able to feed
      herself".




4.    Subsequently   by   another   order   we   constituted   a   panel

headed by Mr. Pradip Ghosh, Senior Advocate as the Chairman

and   including   Mr.   Jayant   Bhushan,   Senior   Advocate,   Durbar

Mahila   Samanwaya   Committee   (DMSC),   Usha   Multipurpose

Cooperative   Society   (UMCS)   and   Roshni   through   its   founder

Ms. Saima Hasan.   We also directed the Central Government

to   provide   some   accommodation   as   well   as   infrastructure,

staff etc. to the panel, and grant it adequate funds.

5.    Today, an interim report has been submitted to us by

the panel stating that the panel held its first meeting on

25th July, 2011 at 04.30 P.M. and discussed various aspects

of the problems relating to sex workers.   The report shall

be taken on record.


                                     4


6.    We have perused the report.   It shows that the panel

has set about the task assigned to it in right earnest.




7.    The   report   has   prayed   for   directions   to   the   Central

Government   to   make   necessary   funds   available   for   holding

workshops/meetings   to   be   attended   by   experts,   resource

persons, organizations etc. who may be invited by the panel

for   this   purpose   and   to   arrange   their   travel   by   air/rail

to   and   fro   Delhi,   and   also   to   make   suitable   arrangements

for   their   accommodation   etc.     Funds   may   also   be   made

available to the panel so that the members can educate the

concerned people and also to visit other three metropolitan

cities   i.e.   Kolkata,   Mumbai   and   Chennai   and   also   other

cities/towns.     Funds   are   also   required   for   advertisements

in   newspapers   and   T.V.   inviting   responses   from   social

organizations and interested individuals who may send their

suggestions/comments   and   also   for   the   purpose   of   printing

and publications, as may be necessary.




8.    We   direct   the   Central   and   the   State   Governments   to

provide   funds   as   prayed   for   by   the   panel   in   its   report

after discussions with the Chairman of the panel Mr. Pradip

Ghosh, Senior Advocate and other members.

9.    In paragraph 10 of the report it has been stated that

the Central Government has assured that they will arrange a

place   for   the   meetings   of   the   Panel   with   necessary


                                       5


infrastructure,   computer,   staff   etc.                  The   Central

Government   should   also   look   around   for   a   permanent   office

accommodation   for   the   panel   as   that   will   be   necessary

sooner or later for the proper functioning of the Panel.




10.    We   have   noted   that   some   of   the   members   of   the   panel

are from Kolkata and Delhi, but there is no representation

from   Mumbai   and   Chennai.     Since   we   had   directed   that   we

shall first take up the problems of sex workers in the four

metropolitan   cities,   i.e.   Delhi,   Kolkata,   Mumbai   and

Chennai, we suggest to the Chairman of the panel to co-opt

some   suitable   NGOs/social     activists   from   Mumbai   and

Chennai also in this connection.



11.    We   again   reiterate   that   this   exercise   is   because   we

are of the opinion that sex workers are also human beings

and hence they are entitled to a life of dignity.   It has

been   well-settled   by   a   series   of   decisions   of   this   Court

that   the   word   `life'   in   Article   21   of   the   Constitution

means a life of dignity and not just an animal life.   We

are of the opinion that sex workers obviously   cannot lead

a life of dignity as long as they remain sex workers.





12.    Sex   among   human   beings   is   different   from   sex   among


                                       6


animals.   Sex in humans has a cultural aspect to it also,

and is not just a physical act.   A sex worker who has to

surrender   her   body   to   a   man   for   money   obviously   is   not

leading   a   life   of   dignity.       Ordinarily,   no   woman   will

willingly surrender her body to a man unless she loves and

respects him.   A sex worker is obviously not surrendering

her   body   to   a   man   because   she   loves   and   respect   him,   but

just for sheer survival.  As Nancy says in Charles Dicken's

novel `Oliver Twist', "you adapt or you die".



13.    Apart from that, sex workers are always in danger of

getting   sexually   transmitted   diseases   (STD),   and   they   are

often abused and beaten by the proprietors of the brothel

and   others   who   give   them   a   pittance   out   of   her   earnings.

A woman becomes a sex worker not because she enjoys it but

due   to   abject   poverty.     One   estimate   suggests   that   there

are 3 million sex workers in India, many even from Nepal,

Bangaldesh, and even the former Soviet Union.   This is due

to massive poverty in the country, and abroad.




14.    Our effort in this exercise is to educate the public

and inform them that sex workers are not bad persons, but

they are unfortunate girls who have been forced to go into

this   flesh   trade   due   to   terrible   poverty.     Hence   society

should not look down upon the sex workers but should have

sympathy   with   them.     In   fact,   in   the   novels   of   the   great


                                       7


Bengali   writer   Sharat   Chandra   Chattopadhayay   it   has   been

shown that many of the sex workers were women of very high

character,   e.g.   Rajyalakshmi,   Chandramukhi,   etc.   and   the

same has been shown in the novels of many European writers.

The Russian writer Dostoyevsky's novel `Crime & Punishment'

has   shown   Sonia   Marmeladova   as   a   woman   of   high   character

who   became   a   sex   worker   to   feed   her   starving   family.

Similarly,   in   Charles   Dicken's   novel   `Oliver   Twist',   the

sex   worker   Nancy   is   shown   to   be   a   girl   of   high   character

who sacrifices her life to save Oliver.   In Victor Hugo's

famous novel `Les Miserables', Fantine sacrifices her hair

and teeth to provide for her daughter Cosette.   Martha in

`David   Copperfield'   is   also   depicted   as   a   woman   of   noble

heart.





15.    We   are   of   the   opinion   that   if   sex   workers   are   given

proper technical training they will be able to come out of

sex   work   and   instead   earn   their   livelihood   through   their

technical skills instead of by selling their bodies.   That

will enable them to live a life of dignity.





16.   An impleadment application praying for impleadment in

this   case   has   been   filed.     We   are   of   the   opinion   that

instead   of   applying   for   impleadment   in   this   case,   the


                                     8


applicant   should   approach   the   Panel   constituted   by   us   and

give   whatever   assistance   the   applicant   wishes   to   give   to

the   Panel.   With   these   observations,   the   impleadment

application is disposed of.




17.    Learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand

has stated that he will file a comprehensive affidavit on

behalf of the State within two weeks. He may do so.




18.    We may mention here that we are not satisfied with the

affidavits   already   filed   by   the   State   Governments   before

us.   Their   contents   are   vague   and   too   general.     We   had

expected   the   State   Governments   to   come   forward   with

specific   schemes   for   giving   technical   training   to   sex

workers but that has not been done.  Hence, we direct that

the   Secretaries,   Social   Welfare   Departments   of   the   State

Governments   and   the   Central   Government   to   meet   the   Panel

constituted   by   us   whenever   the   Chairman   of   the   Panel   so

desires so as to discuss how proper schemes in the spirit

of our orders can be prepared.





19.    We are of the opinion that the States should not only

come out with schemes indicating therein rehabilitation of

the   sex   workers   but   they   should   also   demonstrate   their

commitment   to   the   cause   by   coming   out   with   some   concrete


                                      9


results, at least in phases.  So by the next date we expect

the State counsels to come out with some effective feedback

whether   at   least   a   few   sex   workers   have   been   offered   any

alternative   employment,   in   case   they   were   willing   for

rehabilitation.   We   also   leave   it   to   the   Chairman   of   the

Panel constituted by us to come out with some suggestions

in what way the sex workers through the State Governments

and the metro cities can come out with effective results in

this regard and by way of illustration at least they must

come out with report of rehabilitation of at least some of

the sex workers in each of the States.   We make it clear

that   any   rehabilitation   of   the   sex   workers   will   not   be

coercive   in   any   manner   and   it   shall   be   voluntary   on   the

part of the sex workers.

20.    The Chairman of the Panel with the assistance of the

NGOs can provide a list by the next date at least of those

sex workers who are living under dire circumstances and are

willing for rehabilitation.   We are informed that some of

the NGOs have a list of figures and localities of such sex

workers who are immediately willing for rehabilitation and

want to get out of the flesh trade.




21.    We are fully conscious of the fact that simply by our

orders   the   sex   workers   in   our   country   will   not   be

rehabilitated immediately.   It will take a long time, but

we have to work patiently in this direction.  What we have


                                     10


done   in   this   case   is   to   present   the   situation   of   sex

workers   in   the   country   in   the   correct   light,   so   as   to

educate   the   public.     It   is   ultimately   the   people   of   the

country,   particularly   the   young   people,   who   by   their

idealism   and   patriotism   can   solve   the   massive   problems   of

sex   workers.     We,   therefore,     particularly   appeal   to   the

youth   of   the   country   to   contact   the   members   of   the   panel

and to offer their services in a manner which the panel may

require so that the sex workers can be uplifted from their

present degraded condition.   They may contact the panel at

the email address: panelonsexworkers@gmail.com.

22.    List the case again before this Bench on 24.08.2011 at

10.30 a.m. by which date the Panel appointed by us should

submit another report of the progress made.




                                     ........................J.
                                     (MARKANDEY KATJU)





NEW DELHI;                           ........................J.
AUGUST 02, 2011                      (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)