1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2516 OF 2009 Manohar Teoomal Joukani & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. N. Thakkar with Rajesh Sharma for the Applicants. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani with Ms. Edith Day for Intervenor. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 02nd FEBRUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Petitioners have invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash C.R.No.143 of 2009 registered by Khar Police Station, Mumbai. 2. Applicant Nos.1,2 and 3 are Indian Citizens residing in India at the address mentioned in the cause title. The son of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of Petitioner No.3 Vijay is the husband of the Intervenor/Second Respondent to this Petition. 3. The FIR has been lodged by the Second Respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of I.P.C. 2 4. The only ground on which FIR is sought to be quashed by the Petitioners is that during the marriage, the husband and wife had disputes and quarrels but all events narrated in the statement of the complainant have occurred in Australia. In these circumstances, Section 188 of Cr.P.C. would come into play and if the proviso thereof is perused, this complaint cannot be investigated unless prior sanction of the Central Government is obtained. 5. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention for more than one reason. The statement of the Second Respondent recorded on 3rd April 2009 must be seen as a whole. If the said statement is perused, it is apparent therefrom that the Complainant narrates that the marriage between her and son of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was solemnized and registration ceremony took place at Bombay on 20th July 2008. The marriage has been registered on 22nd July 2008 at the Registration Office at Bandra, Mumbai. Thereafter, the Complainant came to reside with her husband at Bandra, Mumbai. Thereafter, the events that have been narrated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement have taken place. Even if one assumes for the sake of arguments that the acts of cruelty and assault as far as the husband are concerned, took place in Australia, it is common ground that it is not husband, who has approached this Court seeking quashing of the subject FIR. It is the in-laws who have approached the Court and admittedly they are residing in India. As far as they are concerned, all allegations pertained to events which have 3 occurred in India and more particularly, in Mumbai, to my mind, from a reading of this FIR and the statements of the Complainant, Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted. Any larger question or controversy need not be gone into once this conclusion is reached. Since prima-facie, all allegations as far as the Petitioners are concerned, pertaining to events which have taken place in this Country, the only contention must fail. 6. In the result, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)