Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1526
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.M. Akbar Ali, J.
C. Hari Sankar and Others
Versus
Deepa Lakshmi and Another
Crl. O.P. Nos. 25077 and Crl. R.C. No. 1113 of 2009 and connected M.Ps.
Decided On : 28 March 2012
V. Subbiah, for Petitioners B. Ullasavelan and Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, for Respondents
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Jurisdiction of Offences - Section 188 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition to quash the records in a criminal case and set aside an order passed by the Magistrate. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 498-A, 294-B, 406, 506-(II) IPC, and 3, 4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The marriage between the petitioner and the complainant took place in India, and the couple also lived in Australia and America during the marriage. The complainant alleged cruelty, harassment, and dowry demands by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences alleged to have been committed in India could be proceeded with, but the trial for offences alleged to have been committed outside India required the prior sanction of the Central Government as per Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issues were whether the proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and whether the trial Court was correct in dismissing the discharge petition. Additionally, the court considered the jurisdiction of offences under Section 188 Cr.P.C and the requirement of prior sanction for offences committed outside India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offences alleged to have been committed in India could be proceeded with, but the trial for offences alleged to have been committed outside India required the prior sanction of the Central Government as per Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India, but not to proceed with the trial for offences alleged to have been committed outside India without the sanction of the Central Government as per Section 188 Cr.P.C.
1. The petition in Crl. O.P. No. 25077 of 2010 is filed to call for the records in C.C. No. 5496 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.
2. The Criminal Revision Petition in Crl. R.C. No. 1113 of 2009 is filed to set aside the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in MP No.5496 of 2008 in C.C. No. 4471 of 2008.
3. The petitioners are the accused against whom a charge sheet has been filed by the 2nd respondent Inspector of Police, W-12, All Women Police Station, Chennai for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 294-B, 406, 506-(II) IPC, 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act .
4. The necessary facts to decide the petition and the revision are as follows:
On 24.10.2004, the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto-complainant Deepalakshmi was arranged and the engagement function was performed at Andhra Club, T. Nagar, Chennai. The 1st respondent was an Australian citizen. Therefore, on 25.10.2004, the marriage was registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, George Town, Chennai. However, the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu Rights and Customs on 22.11.2004.
5. From 22.11.2004 to 5.2.2005, the petitioner and the 1st respondent were residing at Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai in the residence of the petitioner and sometimes at Amman Koil Street, Kondithoppu in the residence of the 1st respondent. During the above said period, the petitioner met with a motor accident and sustained injury on the right leg and was operated upon. Therefore, the 1st respondent alone left for Australia on 5.2.2005. The petitioner obtained Visa subsequently and joined the 1st respondent on 6.3.2005.
6. However, the 1st respondent had gone to USA on her employment and the petitioner joined the 1st respondent only on 5.4.2006. In the first week of March 2007, the 1st respondent left USA to visit her parents in Australia and on 29.3.2007 the petitioner returned to India.
7. However, problem started between the spouses and the 1st respondent issued a lawyer’s notice stating that the marriage had irretrievably broken down w.e.f. 20.7.2007. She also visited Chennai and preferred a complaint against the petitioner and his parents on 29.2.2008. The 1st respondent applied for a divorce in Australia on 4.9.2008 and obtained an order of divorce on 18.11.2008 dissolving the marriage that took place on 25.10.2004.
8. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent stating that she has been subjected for cruelty and harassment at the hands of her husband and in-laws, who were only eying her income and making more demands and thereby committed various offences as aforesaid.
9. The Inspector of Police. W-10, AWS Chennai registered a case in Cr. No. 1 of 2008 which was investigated by Inspector of Police, B-4 Police station and ultimately, after investigation, the charge sheet was filed by W.12, All Women Police station. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai took the case on file in C.C. No. 5496 of 2008 and aggrieved by which, A.1 viz., the husband of the complainant has filed the present application to quash the proceedings on various grounds.
10. Pending proceedings in C.C. No. 5496 of 2008, the petitioner and his parents filed a criminal M.P. No. 4471 of 2008 under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking discharge on the ground that the proposed charges are baseless. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate enquired the application and ultimately dismissed the application on 30.10.2009. Aggrieved by which, all the accused have filed the revision petition in Crl. R.C. 1113 of 2009 on various grounds.
11. Since the issues involved in both the applications are one and the same and parties are one and the same, both the matters are taken up together and a common order is passed.
12. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and whether the trial Co
