Madras High Court

Mr.P.Dhanapal vs State Represented By on 10 April, 2023

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 10.04.2023

                                                    CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                             Crl.O.P.No.4954 of 2021
                                                       and
                                             Crl.M.P.No.3164 of 2021


                  1. Mr.P.Dhanapal
                  2. Mr.M.Palanisamy
                  3. Mrs.P.Jothi
                  4. Mrs.P.Saranya
                  5. Mr.P.Jayakumar
                  6. Mrs.P.Anitha                                         ... Petitioners


                                                       Vs.

                  1. State Represented by,
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     All Women Police Station,
                     Namakkal District.
                     (Crime No:03 of 2016)

                  2. Mrs.Kowsalya                                         ... Respondents

                  PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
                  call for the records in C.C.No.110 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned
                  Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District and quash the same against
                  the petitioners.



                 1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021



                                        For Petitioner       : Mr.M.Jaikumar
                                        For Respondents      :
                                        For R1               : S.Balaji
                                                               Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                        For R2               : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
                                                               A.Yogaraj


                                                     ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and

to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.110 of 2016 for

the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Paramathi, Namakkal District.

2. It is alleged in the final report that the petitioners had demanded a

sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry from the second respondent / defacto

complainant and since the second respondent / defacto complainant did not

accede to the demand of the petitioners, she was subjected to cruelty and

further she was also threatened that the petitioners will find a new bride for

the first petitioner / A1.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

3. The second and third petitioners are the father and mother of the first

petitioner. The fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner / A1 and the

fifth petitioner is the husband of the fourth petitioner. The sixth petitioner is

the unmarried sister of the first petitioner / A1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

allegations in the final report are vague and made to wreak vengeance against

the first petitioner with whom the second respondent / defacto complainant

had matrimonial differences and had implicated the petitioner's family

members who had nothing to do with the offences.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is

nothing in the impugned final report to state as to when the demand of

Rs.10,00,000/- was made by the petitioners and what is the nature of cruelty

meted out to the second respondent / defacto complainant on account of the

said dowry demand.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that

subsequent to the filing of final report the parties have arrived at a compromise

and this compromise was confirmed by the second respondent in her

deposition dated 29.01.2018 given before the Subordinate Court, Sankari in

H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2016. In the said deposition, the second respondent had

stated that the second respondent and the first petitioner had agreed to

withdraw all the allegations and complaints against each other and she had

received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as permanent alimony from the first petitioner.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent

police would submit that there are allegations against the petitioners in the

final report which has to be adjudicated only at the time of trial and hence

prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

8. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the

deposition of the second respondent in the matrimonial proceedings should not

be considered in the instant quash petition. In the present case, it has to be

seen only if the allegations attract the offences punishable under Sections 498

(A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of materials

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

filed along with the impugned final report. The learned counsel therefore

submitted that the impugned final report discloses the offences and the

proceedings under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C. cannot be quashed merely on the

ground that the allegations are highly improbable. The learned counsel relied

upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.

10. This Court, on the reading of the impugned final report finds that

apart from the vague allegations that the first petitioner / A1 demanded

Rs.10,00,000/- from the second respondent, there is no other allegation against

the petitioners 2 to 6. It is stated in the impugned final report that the

petitioners 1 to 6 had jointly committed cruelty by defaming the second

respondent and abusing her in filthy language. No details of the harassment

has been given in the impugned final report.

11. This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly held that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

when family members of the husband are implicated for the offence punishable

under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C, the allegations must be specific and clear. It is

seen that unmarried sister of the first petitioner is also made an accused.

Husband of one of the sisters is also made an accused without any basis.

12. That apart, even as regards the first petitioner, it is not clearly stated

as to when the alleged demand of dowry was made and what was the nature of

cruelty on account of the said dowry demand. On an over all reading of the

allegations in the final report it appears to be a case of matrimonial difference

between the petitioners and the second respondent.

13. That apart, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, the second respondent / defacto complainant, in her deposition

before the Subordinate Court, Sankari in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2016 had stated

that she and the first petitioner agreed to withdraw all the allegations and

complaints made against each other. She had also accepted permanent alimony

of Rs.1,50,000/- from the first petitioner.

14. The relevant portion of the second respondent, deposition dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

29.01.2018 reads as follows:-

“Fwf;F tprhuiz:-

ehDk;. vd; fztUk; 2 tUlkhf gphpe;nj thH;fpwhk;/ jpUkzj;jpd;nghJ vdf;F nghlg;gl;l eiffs;. kw;Wk; tPlL ; cgnahf bghUl;fis ehd; vjph;kDjhuhplkpUe;J ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F btspna itj;J bgw;W bfhz;nld;/ ehd; vd; fztu;. mtuJ bgw;nwhu; kw;Wk; FLk;g cWg;gpdu; cl;gl 5 ngu; kPJ gukj;jp midj;J kfspu; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; tujl;riz bfhLik Fwpj;J g[fhu; bfhLj;jpUe;njd; vd;why;. rupjhd;/ vd; fztu; vdJ rpj;jg;gh re;jpunrfud; kw;Wk; rpj;jp g{';bfho kPJ nkhro g[fhu; xd;wpid ehkf;fy; khtl;lk;. ntYhu;. fhty; epiyaj;jpy; bfhLj;jpUe;jhu; vd;why; rupjhd;/ ehDk;.

vjpu;kDjhuUk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F btspna v';fSf;fpilapyhd gpur;rpid Fwpj;J rkurk; ngrpndhk; vd;why; rupjhd;/ mjd;go nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l ,U g[fhu;fisa[k; gu!;guk; eh';fspUtUk; nky; elj;jhky; tpl;L tpLtJ vd;W rk;kjpj;Js;nshk;/ vd; fztu; vdf;F xl;L bkhj;j thH;ehs; $Ptdhk;r bjhifahf U/: 1,50,000/- I t';fpahsu; fhnrhiy K:yk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F btspna itj;J eh';fspUtUk; nru;eJ ;

thGk; tha;gg; f[ s; fpilahJ.”

15. Therefore, for all the above reasons this Court is of the view that the

impugned proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the second respondent /

defacto complainant in X vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported

in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26, is a case where there were allegations against the

accused and the High Court held that the allegations were highly improbable.

In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the

High Court quashing the proceedings. However in the facts of the instant case,

there are no allegations to attract the offence besides the fact that subsequently

the parties have arrived at a settlement and had agreed to withdraw the