Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022 and
Crl.MP.No.7621 of 2022
1.Sundarammbal
2.Babu
3.Indirani ... Petitioners/A2 to A4
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
R6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station,
Crime Branch,
Chennai
2.Jayabharathi ... Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records in CC.No.413 of 2022 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Thenrajan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
for Mr.T.Elumalai
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.413 of 2022 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under sections 406, 420, 428, 498(a), 509, 506(i) r/w 120(b) of IPC, in Crime No.1381 of 2018, as against the petitioners.
2. Heard, Mr.K.Thenrajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent, and Mr.T.Thirumoorthy, the learned counsel for the second respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the mother of A1 and petitioners 2 & 3 are brother and sister in law of A1. In 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022 the year 2007, when the defacto complainant was studying her M.B.A. in Veltech College, Avadi, she became a friend of A1 and thereafter they loved each other. Thereafter, A1 asked financial support for a job in London and the defacto complainant gave Rs.6,00,000/-. However, A1 returned to India as he did not like to work in London. When the complainant demanded her money, A1 convinced and got registered marriage with complainant. However, A1 asked not to disclose the same to anyone until he tells the same to both the family members. When the complainant and her mother discussed about their marriage with A1's parents, they asked some time to perform marriage. Later, A1 told that his parents advised him not to marry defacto complainant. Thereafter, A1 contacted defacto complainant and said that he will convince his parents for marriage and demanded money for starting a business. Therefore, she gave Rs.1,00,000/- and also 50 sovereigns gold jewels, there by started business. However, later he refused to contact the complainant. On the complaint of the defacto complainant before AWPS, Saidapet, a compromise was arrived at and A1 assured that he will live with her. Again, he refused to speak with the defacto complainant. Later, she came to know that A1 married another girl. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022 Thereafter, when the complainant approached A1, he informed that he was not willing to live with her and he will return the cash and jewels through court. Therefore, she filed divorce petition. However, A1 failed to keep his words.
4. There are totally four accused, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A4 herein. On perusal of the charge sheet and also statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. revealed that the entire allegations made only as against the first accused. The first accused is not before this Court. The petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A4 who are none other than the mother, brother and sister-in-law of the first accused. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, some of the amount, on instruction by the first accused, has been transferred by the defacto complainant in her favour. To substantiate the same, the bank manager was examined and also produced statement of accounts. Therefore, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings as against the first petitioner. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022
5. Insofar as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they are arrayed as A3 and A4 and there are absolutely no allegation as against them to attract any of the offences as alleged by the defacto complainant under sections 406, 420, 428, 498(a), 509, 506(i) r/w 120(b) of IPC. Even according to the second respondent, when they approached the petitioners for marriage with the first accused, they assured that they will arrange marriage between them. However, later they failed to arrange marriage. Except these allegations, no other specific allegations to attract any of the offences. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it is held as follows:
“the allegations made against the husband, the in-
laws, husband's brother and sister were bald allegations and appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the in-laws of the complainant. It was held that with regard to allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) and Section 4 of 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022 Dowry Prohibition Act, were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Accordingly, the proceedings against them were quashed. ”
6. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Further, the petitioners 2 & 3 are charged for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. Mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them. Therefore, the entire proceedings cannot be sustained as against petitioners 2 & 3 and it is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.
7. Therefore, the entire proceedings in CC.No.413 of 2022 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under sections 406, 420, 428, 498(a), 509, 506(i) r/w 120(b) of IPC, in Crime No.1381 of 2018 is quashed as against petitioners 2 & 3 alone. However, this Court is not inclined to quash the above proceedings as against the first petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022 original petition as against the first petitioner is dismissed and this criminal original petition stands allowed as against petitioners 2 & 3 alone. However, the personal appearance of the first petitioner before the trial court is dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the first petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, lok To
1.XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police, R6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Crime Branch, Chennai
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Crl.O.P.No.13992 of 2022 09.09.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis