LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-286

S. KARTHIKEYAN Vs. E. VEDAVANAM AND ORS.

Decided On December 09, 2014
S. KARTHIKEYAN Appellant
V/S
E. Vedavanam And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 7661 of 2014 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The 1st respondent is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the 1st accused in the case. The 1st respondent has filed the private complaint alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 494 read with 107 of IPC. Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent. I have also perused the records carefully.

(2.) Among other grounds, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged second marriage was celebrated in United Kingdom i.e. outside the Indian territory . The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that for a court to take cognizance of the offences committed outside the India as required under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., sanction should have been obtained from the Central Government. In this case, according to the petitioner, no such sanction has been obtained and thus, the order of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai taking cognizance of the offence committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of India is illegal and on that ground, the entire proceedings have to be quashed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that seeking sanction, the petitioner has already made an application to the Central Government and the same is pending. The learned Counsel would further submit that even in paragraph 32 of the complaint, it is stated that a reply has been received by the complainant from the Department stating that the complainant has to approach the Home Ministry for sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter only, the court below has taken cognizance for an offence under Section 499 read with 107 of IPC, he contended.