Madras High Court
S.Karthikeyan vs State Rep. By on 30 June, 2021
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
1.S.Karthikeyan
2.S.Balamurugan
3.S.Kathiresan : Petitioners
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Theni, Theni District.
Cr.No.51 of 2011
2.K.Latha Santhi : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.25 of 2014
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Theni and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Siddharthan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,
Standing Counsel for the State
for R.1
Mr.B.Jeyakumar for R.2
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused nos.1, 4 & 5 in
C.C.No.25 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Theni, have filed this petition to quash the
proceedings pending against them.
2. According to the the second respondent / defacto
complainant, the marriage between her and the first
petitioner was solemnized on 01.09.2008 and at the time of
marriage, 97 Sovereigns of jewels were given as Sreethana,
apart from 7 Sovereigns of jewels to the first petitioner
and Rs.5 Lakh in cash. After the marriage, they lived as a
joint family along with the other accused. The first
petitioner and his brothers have demanded more dowry and
have also collected 57 Sovereigns of jewels in addition to
the Sreethana and also demanded a sum of Rs.20 Lakh for
purchasing a house property. The first petitioner
thereafter demanded a sum of Rs.10 Lakh for commencing a
business. Since the second respondent has not met their
illegal demands, she was driven out of the matrimonial home
and therefore, she lodged a complaint before the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
respondent Police, which was registered in Crime No.51 of
2011, for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 506(i) IPC
and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the
first petitioner appears to have agreed to live separately
with the second respondent by arranging a separate house at
Perambalur. On his promise, the second respondent appears
to have withdrew her complaint. But the first petitioner
refused to live separately with the second respondent and
therefore, once again, the second respondent filed a
protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Theni, in Crime No.51 of 2011 and thereafter, the witnesses
were examined and a final report has been filed as follows:
Offence Accused
u/s 498A, 406, 506(i) IPC, A1
u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, (1 petitioner),
st
u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women A2
Harassment Act
u/s 498A, 406, 506(i) IPC, A3
u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
u/s 498A, 406, 506(i) IPC, A4, A5
u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women (petitioners
Harassment Act 2 & 3)
3. The first petitioner / 1st accused is the husband of
the second respondent / defacto complainant. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
petitioners 2 & 3 are the brothers of the first petitioner,
who are arrayed as accused nos.4 & 5 in C.C.No.25 of 2014.
The prosecution was made as against the parents of the
first petitioner also, who are arrayed as accused nos.2 &
3, however, they died. Therefore, the accused nos.1, 4 & 5
are before this Court.
4. The petitioners 2 & 3 are the in-laws. Perusal of
the papers would show that there is a vague allegation that
the petitioners 2 & 3 have insisted the first petitioner to
get some more dowry from the second respondent. Excepting
this vague statement, that too, without any specific dates
and materials, there is no allegation as against them. On
the other hand, there are specific allegations as against
the first petitioner / husband, which can be tested only
during the trial.
5. The petitioners 2 & 3 are not having any active role
in the alleged commission of offence and there is no overt
act as against the petitioners 2 & 3. That apart, when
there is already a specific allegation as against the first
petitioner that he has demanded more dowry, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
necessity for another person to instigate him to demand
more dowry.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bhaskar
Chattoraj v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1991 SCC
(Cri) 1077, has held as follows:
“3. ... We carefully and meticulously went
through the entire reports as well as the statements
of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the
Criminal Procedure Code during the course of the
investigation and on perusal of the records, we are
satisfied that there is no material connecting the
appellant with the alleged offence of criminal
trespass. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent is not able to satisfy us showing any
material that would justify the implication of the
appellant with the offence for which he now stands
charged. In our considered opinion, no conviction
can be recorded on the mere vague allegations, that
too made only in the petition dated November 15,
1985 and as such the entire proceedings as against
this appellant is only an abuse of the process of
the court. In view of the above circumstances, we
quash the charge framed as against this appellant
under Section 448 IPC. Before parting with the
judgment, we make it clear that we are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of
the other accused and the court trying the case
shall not be influenced by any of the observations
made in this judgment or by this order quashing of
the charge under Section 448 IPC in respect of this
appellant. In the result, we set aside the impugned
order of the High Court and quash the entire
proceedings as against this appellant.”
7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the foregoing discussions, this Court is
inclined to quash the charge sheet insofar as the
petitioners 2 & 3 are concerned. Accordingly, the charge
sheet pending against the petitioners 2 & 3 / accused nos.
4 & 5 alone is quashed. Insofar as the first petitioner /
first accused is concerned, the trial Court is to proceed
with the trial and decide the matter, as expeditiously as
possible, in any event, not later than six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear
that the trial Court shall decide the matter as against the
first petitioner, uninfluenced by any of the observations
rendered by this Court in this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
8. In the result, this criminal original petition
stands partly allowed.
Index : Yes / No 30.06.2021
gk
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Theni.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Theni,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Crl.OP(MD)No.9983 of 2017
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
