K.JOTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.01of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 12.01.2019.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are totally three accused and the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage took place between the first accused and the deceased on 21.04.2011. Thereafter, both went to U.S.A and stayed there for two years and thereafter came to India on 27.10.2013. Again on 16.11.2013, both went to U.S.A and as such, both lived in India hardly for only twenty days. Unfortunately, on 27.09.2015 the deceased committed suicide in U.S.A on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 498 (A) ,108(A),306 IPC and section 3,6(2) Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submitted that the entire occurance took place in U.S.A. Therefore, before initiation of prosecution, they have to comply the provisions as contemplated under Section 188 Cr.P.C. Further he submitted that without getting any previous sanction from the State Government or the Central Government of India, the first respondent cannot prosecute the quotation petitions. Therefore, prays for the quashment of entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.01 of 2018.

(3.) Per cantra the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that, there are specific allegations for the offences under Section 498 (A) ,108(A),306 IPC and section 3,6(2) Dowry Prohibition Act. They also filed e- mail communications between the petitioners and the first accused in respect of cruelty committed on the deceased. He further submitted that to attract the offence under section under Section 498 (A) ,108(A),306 IPC and section 3,6(2) Dowry provision Act, there are specific allegations as against the petitioners and as such, under Section 482 CRPC, the points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered and he prayed for dismissal of quash petition and he also relied Judgment reported in (2011)9 SCC 527 (Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Principal Secretary and another) and (1996) 7 SCC 440 (Mushtaq Ahmad vs. Mohd.Habibur Rehman Faizi and others). He further submitted that in respect of the sanction 188 Cr.P.C, before initiation of prosecution it can be obtained by the prosecution to proceed. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of quash petition.