Absence of sanction under S.188 Cr.P.C. renders prosecution for acts committed overseas an abuse of process.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. Though, the name of the second respondent is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the second respondent.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, Rekha got married to Badrinath (A.1) on 07.07.2002. After marriage, they went to U.S.A., and there they set their matrimonial home. It is alleged by Rekha that their marriage was not consummated and that her husband was postponing the consummation of marriage on some pretext or the other. It is further alleged by Rekha that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband in U.S.A.

3. According to the prosecution, Rekha returned to India on 12.02.2004 and joined her parents in Madurai. On the complaint given by Sundaram @ Raghu, the father of Rekha, the Madurai Police initially registered a case in Crime No. 5/2004 and the case was transferred to the file of W. 25, All Women Police Station, Chennai for want of territorial jurisdiction.

4. The first respondent police re - registered the case as Crime No.6/2004 on 15.05.2004 and took up investigation of the case. In the mean time, Rekha filed H. M. O. P. No. 135/2004 before the Family Court, Madurai for divorce under S.13(1)(a) and S.12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act . The Family Court, Madurai allowed the petition exparte and the marriage was declared as null and void on the ground of impotence of the husband.

5. The first respondent police completed the investigation in Crime No.6/2004 and filed final report in C.C.No.6296/2005 against four accused including the petitioners herein for offences under S.498(A) and S.406 I.P.C. From the year 2005 to 2009, nothing happened before the trial Court. V. N. Subramaniam (fourth accused) died in the mean time. The petitioners herein filed this quash petition in the year 2009 and notice has also been served on Sundaram @ Raghu ( defacto complainant).

6. This Court carefully perused the final report and the accompanying documents. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that there are several materials for the prosecution to proceed and therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

7. It is seen that immediately after marriage, Rekha went to U. S. A., and she was living with her husband there. She has sent an e - mail to her father from there in which, she has stated that the marriage was not consummated and that her husband is giving excuses to avoid consummation of marriage. She has also stated that she was subjected to cruelty and all the other usual allegations are found in that. There are no allegations as against the other accused namely A.2 to A.4.

8. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, 2014 (8) SCC 273 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: -
"There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. S.498 - A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that S.498 - A is a cognizable and non - bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grand - fathers and grand - mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Hom