M RATHINAVELU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. No. 6488 of 2012 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are the revision petitioners in this Criminal Revision Case. They are aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the trial court whereby the petition filed by them under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the criminal proceedings, has been dismissed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that there is no documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to show the alleged entrustment of the properties in the form of jewels or there was any evidence to prove that the same were unlawfully withheld by the petitioners/ accused. There is no specific allegations or overt act attributed against the petitioners 1 to 4/accused 1 to 4 in the offence complained of, especially harassment or cruelly treating the defacto complainant and therefore the court below ought to have atleast discharged the accused 1 to 4 from the purview of criminal prosecution. The trial court failed to take note of the fact that the accused No.3 is the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant and accused No.4 is the husband of accused No.3, they got married in the year 1999 and residing separately at Anna Nagar, Chennai. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 were falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the cruel treatment or harassment meted out to the defacto complainant, as alleged. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 are in no way connected with the matrimonial relationship between the fifth accused and the defacto complainant. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the complaint was filed 7 years after the marriage and the present complaint has been filed without giving any complaint to the Officer nominated under the Prevention of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court also failed to take note of the fact that even according to the defacto complainant, the offences alleged against the accused have been committed both in India and outside India and therefore before prosecuting the accused, the prosecution ought to have obtained sanction as contemplated under Section 188 and 189 of Criminal Procedure Code. In this context, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of (Thota Venkateswaralu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another, 2011 9 SCC 527) to contend that if the offence committed in India as well as out side the Country, sanction for prosecution is necessary. Though, for framing of charge, sanction is not necessary, before trial such permission has to be obtained by the prosecution. In Para No. 12 and 13 of this decision, the Honourable Supreme Court held in para No. 12 to 15 which are extracted herein as follows:-