Madras High Court
N.Kambadasan vs State Through on 26 September, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 28.06.2022
Delivered on 22.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
and
Crl.O.P(MDNo.6295 of 2022
1.N.Kambadasan
2.K.Rajathi
3.K.Premkumar
4.K.Jegadeshkumar
... Petitioners/A2 to A5
Vs.
1.State through
Inspector of Police
AWPS Tallakulam,
Madurai City,
(Crime No.51/2021)
2.D.Jancy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No.51 of 2021 on the file of
the first respondent/AWPS, Tallakulam, Madurai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
Govt. Advocate (crl. side) (for R1)
Mr.M.Subash Babu (for R2)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
F.I.R.No.51 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent/Inspector of
Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City.
2.Fact:- The second respondent/defacto complainant D.Jancy is the
wife of one Karthik. The petitioner 1 and 2 are the parents of the said
Karthik. The petitioners 4 and 5 are the brothers of the said Karthik. The
marriage was solemnized between the second respondent and the said
Karthik on 06.11.2016 at Master Mahal situated at Kalavasal area
Madurai City. After the marriage, they lived together at Kuwait since
the husband of the second respondent is working at Kuwait. Due to
lawful wedlock, they blessed with a female child. According to the
second respondent, while they are in Kuwait, her husband harassed her.
Hence, she came to India and she is living with her parents from March
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
2021. Thereafter, the second respondent/wife had not went to the Kuwait
to live with her husband. After knowing the arrival of her husband to
India, she went to the petitioners' house and enquired why she was not
informed about the arrival of her husband. At that time, the petitioners
harassed and threatened her. Hence, she gave a complaint on 23.11.2021
and the same was registered in Crime No.51 of 2021 under Sections
498A and 506(i) IPC. To quash the said proceedings, the petitioners filed
this petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the second respondent did not live with the son of the petitioners 1 and 2
at Kuwait and she came to India and now she is living with her parents
and she refused to go with her husband. She gave complaint against the
petitioners on 14.09.2021 alleging that they are demanding dowry and
harassed her. After receiving her complaint, the respondent police made
an enquiry and they also participated in the enquiry and they
compromised the matter and the second respondent refused to live with
her husband and received gold ornaments and goods, which were given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
at the time of marriage. Under such circumstances, the second complaint
with the same allegation is musing the process of law. Hence, the learned
counsel prays for quashing the impugned proceedings.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto
complainant submitted that the relationship is admitted. Since the
petitioners being the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-laws
of the second respondent, harassed her and demanded more money. In
respect of the same, a complaint has been given. When the allegations in
the First Information Report disclose the commission of cognizable
offence, it cannot be quashed. In support of his argument, the learned
counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (Crl.A.No.330 of 2021).
5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for
the first respondent police strongly opposed to quash the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
6.I have considered the rival submission of the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the second respondent
is the wife, the first petitioner is the father-in-law, the second petitioner is
the mother-in-law and the petitioners 3 and 4 are the brother-in-laws.
The 1st and 2nd petitioners' son Karthik married the second respondent.
Both are lived at Kuwait for some period and the husband is now living
at Kuwait. They are having four years old female child. Due to the
difference of opinion, the second respondent came to India and lives with
her parents. The said facts are not disputed.
8. The second respondent gave a complaint against her husband
and his family members alleging they are demanding dowry and this
complaint was received by the respondent police and assigned in
C.S.R.No.717 of 2021 dated 26.09.2021. In the complaint, on
compromise, the second respondent received her gold ornaments and
other goods from her husband on 26.09.2021 and 06.01.2022, which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
also acknowledged by her. The above said facts would show that they
are settled the dispute on 06.01.2022 itself. Now, based on the second
complaint, the present impugned First Information Report has been
registered against the family members of the husband.
9.In such circumstances, it would be unfair and contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and the
continuance of the criminal proceedings would tantamount abuse of
process of law despite the settlement and compromise between the
parties upon her previous complaint. It is appropriate that the criminal
proceedings is put to end. Further, the reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the second respondent is factually distinguishable. In that
case, the case has been registered under Section 406, 420, 465, 675 and
120B IPC, but in the case on hand, the allegation only against the family
members of the husband of the defacto complainant by giving second
complaint. Hence, the said Judgment is not helpful to the second
respondent/defacto complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
10. In view of the above fact, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed and the FIR in Crime No.51 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent/AWPS, Tallakulam, Madurai is quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.07.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
skn
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
AWPS Tallakulam,
Madurai City,
(Crime No.51/2021)
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7491 of 2022
and
Crl.O.P(MDNo.6295 of 2022
22.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
