IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35296 of 2006 1. GANESH SHARMA 2. BINOD SHARMA 3. HIRAMAN SHARMA 4. PUNAM DEVI 5. SHAMBHU SAH @ KANI SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6/ 16/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 12.12.2005 framing charges under Sections- 304B and 201/34 of I.P.C., as affirmed on 4.8.2005 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Govindganj P.S. Case No.106/97, Tr. No.171/05. The petitioners had come to this Court earlier in Cr. Misc. No.27817/98, under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the first information report. This Court held that the case was still at the stage of collection of materials and it was pre-mature to predicate the course of events. The application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted from the allegations in the F.I.R. that the deceased was done away within the territorial jurisdiction of Nepal when her dead body was found in 2 the river Gandak, within the territorial limits of India. The submission, therefore, is that from the allegations in the F.I.R., no part of the cause of action has taken place within the territory of India. He submits that the provision-201 of I.P.C. has no application in the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on Section-177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to urge that the trial was competent only in the territory of Nepal where the petitioners had already been acquitted. To deal with the first contention of the petitioners that even Section-201 of I.P.C. has no application, the argument has only to be made to be rejected. This Court in Cr. Misc. No.27817/98 observed that prima facie a cognizable offence had been committed under 201 of I.P.C. within the jurisdiction of the Gopalganj Police Station. This order has attained finality. The petitioners acknowledge that the body has been recovered in Indian territory. Thereafter, on basis of what materials a charge is to be framed is for the trial court to decide on basis of the materials collected during investigation placed before it. The petitioners acknowledge that the body has been recovered in India when it floated down the river. In the entirety, this Court finds no merit in 3 the challenge to the applicability of Section-201 of I.P.C. In Section-177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the crucial words therein are “shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried”. The use of the word „ordinarily‟ is itself an acknowledgement that cases can also be tried at other places and that there is no absolute bar to the same. What these other conditions would be, are reflected in Section-178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An offence was committed. This resulted in the dead body being recovered on the Indian side. If charge has been framed on that basis under Section-304B of I.P.C., this Court, at this initial stage, finds it difficult to hold that Section-304B of I.P.C. has no application as the occurrence is alleged to have taken place outside the territorial limits of India. The death and the recovery of the dead body, to this Court, are matters connected integrally. This Court finds it difficult at this stage to hold that charge cannot be framed Section-304B of I.P.C. notwithstanding that the body may have been recovered within the territorial jurisdiction of this country or to simultaneously hold that no offence under Section-201 of I.P.C. is made out because the deceased was allegedly done to death in the territory of Nepal. What the petitioners seek is a 4 complete absolving them of the entire issue notwithstanding that the dead body of the deceased has been recovered in the territory of India. There was a death. This resulted in a dead body. What and who caused the death resulting in the recovery of the dead body are all matters of investigation and trial. Section-188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of 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. Insofar as the last submission under Section-300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it deals with previous judgements delivered by Indian courts. What shall be the effect of a foreign judgment, vis-à-vis, that of a domestic court, are matters to be decided on consideration of the Principles of International Laws at the stage of trial. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)