Madras High Court
Sundarammbal vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2022
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
