Criminal Misc.-M No.33005 of 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 02, 2011 Rajbaljinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms.Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner-Rajbaljinder Kaur, who is resident of New York, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not only through her attorney but through a sub-attorney. Not only this, the petitioner is seeking direction for respondent No.1 for grant of sanction to respondent Nos.2 to 6 for holding an enquiry in regard to alleged offence of murder, which is allegedly committed in United States of America. The counsel, thus, had not only to justify the action under law to make this approach through sub-attorney but also that there is a scope to issue the directions as sought for investigation of offence of murder, which has taken place and outside this country and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts in India. When the prayer of the counsel for adjourning the case was declined, the counsel did not raise any argument whatsoever and stated that order may be passed on merits. When the Court Criminal Misc.-M No.33005 of 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: started dictating the order, the counsel opens her brief and has submitted that the petitioner is seeking above-noted directions to respondent Nos.2 to 6 for holding an enquiry against those persons who are presently located within the jurisdiction of this Court, being residents of Jalandhar. The counsel further submits that these directions are prayed for for holding enquiry under Section 188 Cr.P.C. qua the criminal conspiracy in committing murder of Kamaljit Singh @ Goldi by respondent Nos.7 and 8 in front of 123-16 97th Avenue in Richmond Hill, Queens in United States of America. Though the counsel has not made any submission as to how the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C. would be attracted to the facts as pleaded but still the prayer as made in the petition is duly considered. This Section makes a provision that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, whether on high seas or elsewhere or 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. As per the proviso, no such offence shall be enquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. No doubt this Section is an enabling provision for inquiry into a case, which has taken place outside the Country and, thus, extending extra territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in India in certain cases but substantive law in this regard is in Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which would also be relevant. To determine, if any case is made out to invoke this extra territorial jurisdiction to direct Government to grant sanction for Criminal Misc.-M No.33005 of 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: inquiry and trial, the context in which this prayer is made would have to be examined. This is a case where son of the petitioner has been convicted for an offence of murder of one Kamaljit Singh, which has taken place on 25.8.1996 in U.S.A. Conviction has also taken place in U.S.A and against this conviction, the convict has filed an appeal. As per the petitioner, being Jat her son was made a scapegoat because of a dispute between `Jat', and `Lubana' community over possession and management of Gurudwara in Richmond Hill, New York, U.S.A. Reference is made to the investigator engaged in this case to urge that he was able to trace an eye witness, who could give evidence that son of the petitioner was not present at the scene of shooting. The petitioner has further averred that Amarpreet Singh has stated that Sandeep Singh @ Vicky and Sandeep Singh @ Jassa started shooting. Respondent No.8 was the other occupant of the vehicle. On this basis, the petitioner alleges that respondent Nos.7 and 8 are involved in this case and accordingly the present petition has been filed. The petitioner pleads that if investigation is conducted in India, it would help acquittal of son of the petitioner, who is innocent. How investigation in this Country of an offence of murder, for which the son of the petitioner stands already convicted, who has also filed an appeal against the order of conviction, would help, is not really made out. This approach appears to be misconceived. Merely because two persons are present in this Country, who, as per the petitioner, are involved in murder in United States, can not be accepted at face value, the petitioner being highly interested person, and would appear beyond the jurisdiction of legal parameters of Criminal Misc.-M No.33005 of 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: Section 188 Cr.P.C. This Section is not an enabling provision for an accused or his relative to seek enquiry or trial of some person, who is accused of an offence committed outside India. It is nowhere pleaded in the petition that respondent Nos.7 and 8 are either accused of having committed an offence or they have committed an offence, even as per the allegation of the investigating agency in the United States. In my view, the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C. would not be attracted in this case on a simple plea as made on the asking of the petitioner, who even has not chosen herself to come before the Court but is approaching through a sub-attorney who is stationed in India and would have no means of knowing what has happened or what has transpired in regard to this incident, which allegedly had taken place in United States of America. Whatever is averred by the sub attorney is not on his personal knowledge and is derived from a person who is neither the complainant nor the aggrieved person against the alleged crime. The petitioner would not be entitled to make approach even otherwise but certainly can not be heard through sub attorney. The petition is accordingly dismissed. November 02, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE