1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2009 1. Shri Harischandra alias Dinesh Naik son of Shri Mahadev Naik, aged 30 years, business. 2. Shri Mahadev Naik, son of late Shri Harischandra Naik, aged 65 years, 3. Smt. Sukanti alias Shalini Naik, wife of Mahadev Naik, aged 50 years, housewife, all residents of H.No.480, near Maruti Temple, New Vaddem, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 4. Smt. Sanjana alias Sharmila Dessai, wife of Shri Suhas Dessai, aged 33 years, housewife, 5. Shri Suhas Dessai, son of Shri Chandrakant Dessai, aged 30 years, business, 6. Smt. Reshma Dessai, wife of Sudhakar Dessai, aged 32 years, housewife, 7. Shri Sudhakar Dessai, son of Chandrakant Dessai, aged 34 years, business, all residents of House No.181/1, Talapwada, Pirna, Bardez Goa. 8. Shri Uttam Kandolkar, son of Shri Sadashiv Kandolkar, aged 46 years, business, resident of H.No. 480, near Maruti Temple, New Vaddem, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. ... Petitioners 2 V e r s u s 1. State through Vasco Police Station, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 2. Public Prosecutor, Panaji Goa. .... Respondents. Mr. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Coram :- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date :- 15 th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER : The main grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that no cognizance could have been taken by the learned J.M.F.C., Vasco, for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 494, 495, 496 of IPC unless there was a complaint made to the Court. The case against the petitioners was investigated by the police upon the first information filed by the wife and the petitioners were prosecuted under a charge sheet filed under Sections 493, 494, 495, 496, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC. The objection now taken was not taken 3 before the learned Trial Court before framing of charge. The objection was also not taken before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that the objection was taken in terms of grounds (iii), (iv) and (vii) of the Revision application. The submission cannot be accepted. A perusal of the said grounds does not show that such a objection was taken, in a manner taken now, and therefore, it was not considered by the Revisional Court. If it was taken before the Revisional Court, the Court would have certainly considered the same. Learned counsel submits that objection is fundamental and goes to the root of the trial. I am not inclined to consider the submission. Considering that the objection taken is taken for the first time before this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction and as it was not taken before the learned Trial Court as well as learned Sessions Court, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed in limine. Liberty to petitioners as is available in law. N. A. BRITTO, J. at* 4