ORDER : 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. 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 appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant. 13. It is the definite case of the petitioners, especially the first petitioner, who is the husband of the alleged victim that, at any point of time neither the first petitioner nor any petitioners had indulged in any harassment in respect of the alleged victim. K. Balu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant. 13. It is the definite case of the petitioners, especially the first petitioner, who is the husband of the alleged victim that, at any point of time neither the first petitioner nor any petitioners had indulged in any harassment in respect of the alleged victim. However, it is the specific case of the first petitioner that the alleged victim has developed illicit intimacy with some third party and when the same was questioned, she left the matrimonial home and it is also the case of the first petitioner through his counsel, who appeared before this Court, that when the same was reported to the defacto complainant, only in order to over come that situation, and to cover up that misdeed on the part of the alleged victim, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant, she has chosen to file this complaint before the respondent police. 14. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the 161 (Cr.P.C) statements obtained from P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5. On perusal of those statements the P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the mother, father and brother respectively of the alleged victim, have given similar statements before the respondent police. 15. In those statements given by P.W.1 to P.W.3, it can be easily found that except a bald allegations made against the petitioners, there is no clinching averments to state exactly what is the incident where, the alleged victim has been subjected to the harassment at the hands of the petitioners. 16. When the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners insisted upon the ground that only because of the illicit intimacy the alleged victim developed with third party was questioned by the first petitioner, who is the husband, all these things had happened, this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioners that if that being so, why appropriate action to redress the said grievance in the manner known to law, has not been taken by the first petitioner. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners infact has given an answer with the order and decree passed by the Sub Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District in H.M.O.P. No. 167 of 2015. The said HMOP was filed by the first petitioner herein against the alleged victim that is the wife of the first petitioner, for divorce. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners infact has given an answer with the order and decree passed by the Sub Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District in H.M.O.P. No. 167 of 2015. The said HMOP was filed by the first petitioner herein against the alleged victim that is the wife of the first petitioner, for divorce. Since, the alleged victim did not take care of contesting the said case, she remained absent, with the result, the said Court on 26.08.2016 given exparte decree in favour of the first petitioner, who is the husband and also the petitioner in the said case, by the said order, thereby, the marriage bondage between the petitioner and the alleged victim has been terminated. 18. It is also a fact that as against the said order of divorce, though it was passed in exparte, no steps have been taken by the alleged victim to restore the said case and when that position was specifically questioned, the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant submits that the alleged victim has already married a third person with whom she already developed illicit intimacy. 19. That apart, the further statement given by the alleged victim to the respondent Police, subsequently has also been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor wherein the alleged victim have stated the following. “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX” Though the said statement was not given within the meaning of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the contents stated in the said letter is not disputed atleast by the defacto complainant, who is the party before this proceedings. 20. All these factors coherently and conjointly go to show that something went wrong with the alleged victim as she might have developed some illicit intimacy with some third party which could have triggered the first petitioner to raise it as a disputes of course, with the girl amicably. Therefore, in order to escape from such clutch, over the illicit intimacy developed by the alleged victim, this Court feels that, the victim could have left the matrimonial home even without intimating the same to the defacto complainant, who is none other than the mother of the alleged victim. 21. Therefore, in order to escape from such clutch, over the illicit intimacy developed by the alleged victim, this Court feels that, the victim could have left the matrimonial home even without intimating the same to the defacto complainant, who is none other than the mother of the alleged victim. 21. When summons was issued by the Court where divorce O.P was filed by the first petitioner, the alleged victim did not take care of opposing the said petition and even after exparte divorce was given by the said Court even till today she has not taken any care of that proceedings. Moreover, it is informed across the bar by learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant that the alleged victim has married a third person with whom, she already developed the illicit intimacy. Therefore strong grounds to accept the defense theory as projected by the petitioners before this Court. 22. Unfortunately, all these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court in proper perspective and that is the reason why the petition to discharge the petitioners have been rejected by the learned Judge through the impugned order. Since, our basic principle and foundation of the criminal jurisprudence is to safeguard the innocent without being dragged into unnecessary legal tangles that to under the clutch of criminal law, when this kind of cases are coming to the notice of this Court, this Court, after having considered the materials produced before the Court, cannot shut its eyes. 23. Therefore, these materials produced before this Court, certainly are convincing to come to a safe conclusion that these petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and therefore, for the said purpose the charge filed before the Court below is unwarranted and unjustifiable. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that all the petitioners herein are entitled to get the remedy which they sought for before the trial Court. 24. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, the impugned Order is set aside. The petitioners herein, who are the accused in C.C. No. 41 of 2016 (Crime No.13 of 2013 of All Women Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tirupathur, Vellore District are discharged from the charges filed against them by the final report of the first respondent Police.