The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were not liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) of IPC based on the evidence and circumstances presented.

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tirupathur, Vellore District in C.M.P. No. 1709 of 2016 in Crime No.13 of 2013 of All Women Police Station by Order dated 29.04.2016.

2. The first petitioner is the husband of one Suseela. The marriage was solemnized between them on 21.08.1987 and they had been initially lived together leading a peaceful life and out of their wedlock, they gave birth for two children. Thereafter, the relationship got strained. According to the first petitioner, the reason for such strained relationship between the petitioner and his wife is because of the fact that the wife of the 1st petitioner has developed an illegal intimacy with a third person.

3. In the said circumstances, on 11.10.2013 the wife of the first petitioner, who is the victim according to the prosecution, has left the matrimonial home and her whereabouts were not known to anyone.

4. Thereafter, a complaint was filed on 13.10.2013 by the defacto complainant, who is the mother of the victim, to the respondent police.

5. In the said complaint, the defacto complainant, who has been impleaded herein as second respondent, had stated so many allegations against the first petitioner as well as other petitioners. The second and third petitioners are the cousins of the first petitioner and fourth petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner and fifth petitioner is a third party has no relation whatsoever with the first petitioner.

6. Based on the said complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the respondent police had investigated the case and ultimately they have filed a charge against all the petitioners under Section 498(A) of IPC.

7. Since, the petitioners, according to them, are no way connected with the said alleged offences, as framed against them through the charge sheet filed by the respondent police, these petitioners had moved the trial Court by filing a petition to discharge them. The said petition had been rejected by the trial Court through the impugned order, as against which, the present revision has been filed.

8. Before the Trial Court, these petitioners raised the grounds for the discharge. According to them, after completion of sixteen years of marriage between the first petitioner and the alleged victim, the complaint was given by the second respondent/defacto complainant as if, that the petitioners had harassed the victim by demanding dowry. Also raised the grounds that though it was alleged that the victim missed from matrimonial home on 11.10.2013, it has been mentioned that the respondent police had enquired the victim only on 23.04.2015. Therefore, these contradictions would go to show that there is no such ground available for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Section 498(A) of IPC.

9. It seems to have been urged also by the petitioners before the Trial Court that, absolutely there is no complaint from the alleged victim or no statement to that effect that the petitioners have harassed the victim and because of which, the victim had sustained injuries. Also the petitioners, especially the first petitioner raised a ground that, because of the illicit intimacy the victim developed with some third person was questioned by the first petitioner, she left the matrimonial home and only in that context the complaint was given not by the victim that is the wife of the first petitioner, but by her mother, who is the defacto complainant.

10. Opposing all these grounds the respondent police had objected the grant of any discharge as claimed by the petitioners.

11. The Trial Court after having considered all these aspects ultimately has rejected the plea of the petitioners for discharge.

12. I have heard Mr. G. Vinodh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. C. Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr. K. Balu, learned counsel