Cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC is barred by limitation if allegations are not continuous; sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is required only if the offence is committed entirely outside India.

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) has been filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.2698/2021, arising out of Crime No.291/2021 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the case diary and the statement of the witnesses. Perused the decision of the Apex Court in xxxx v. xxxx in Crl.Appeal No.416/2020 dated 24.04.2020 placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. In this matter, as on 29.01.2021, FIR was registered on the allegation that accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the husband and parents of the husband, committed offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC' hereinafter). The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that the 1st accused, who married the defacto complainant on 22.04.2011, while the defacto complainant was staying along with the 1st accused and her parents at the matrimonial home subjected her to cruelty on the allegation that she did not have required beauty and also the dowry given was insufficient. Demand for Rs.10 lakh as dowry is another allegation. Later, the husband went to Sharjah and when the defacto complainant joined him in Sharjah, there the cruelty had been continued. On investigation, final report filed alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC by accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. While assailing the final report, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contending that the ingredients to attract offence under Section 498A are not made out in the instant case. It is further submitted that in this matter, the First Information Statement (FIS) is the one and only statement given by the defacto complainant. On perusal of the same, the allegation in the first part is that, at the time of marriage on 22.04.2011, the parents of the defacto complainant had given 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments and on the date of the marriage itself, those gold ornaments were taken away by the father, mother and sister-in-law of the 1st accused. Again, there is allegation that later the parents of the 1st accused used to say stabby words to the effect that the defacto complainant did not have sufficient beauty, and the money and gold ornaments given were insufficient, and also the 1st accused could have obtained a beautiful wife. The further allegation is that they also demanded Rs.10 lakh more as dowry, and if not, the 1st accused would marry another lady. There is further allegation that demanding more dowry, the defacto complainant was subjected to mental and physical harassment.

5. The second part of the FIS would recite, in continuation of the earlier versions that, after three months, the 1st accused went abroad. The further allegation is that during January, 2016, the 1st accused went abroad and hesitated to return, and the defacto complainant and her child along with her mother, went to gulf. When the 1st accused neglected her, she lodged a complaint before the Indian Association, Sharjah and also lodged a complaint before the Family Court, Shariah, Sharjah. At present, the defacto complainant has been admittedly residing at the house in Cherunniyoor, in view of the protection order granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 are immediately after the marriage in the year 2011 and prior to 2016. Therefore, the first part of the allegation specifically against the petitioners is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed decision in xxxx's case (supra) with reference to paragraphs 12 and 13, where the Apex Court held as under;

12. After considering the decisions of this Court rendered in Vanka