Madras High Court

Mahalakshmi vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 August, 2023

                                                                  Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED :25.08.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

                                  Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.14229 of 2020 and 6116 of 2021
                                                       and
                                  Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.6594 of 2020 and 3515 of 2021

                Crl.O.P(MD) No.14229 of 2020
                Mahalakshmi                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                            Vs.

                1. The Inspector of Police
                   All Women Police Station
                   Keelakarai,
                   Ramanathapuram District

                2. Punitha                                                          ..Respondents

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the First Information Report in Crime No. 12 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same in respect of the petitioner.

                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.K.Elancheziyan

                                        For R-1             : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                              Additional Public Prosecutor
                                        For R-2             : A.Kannan

                Crl.O.P(MD) No.6116 of 2021
                1.V.Thavasankarapandian
                2. T.Vadivel
                3. Muthuvalli
                4. Vijay Anand                                                            ... Petitioners


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

Vs.


                1. The Inspector of Police
                   All Women Police Station
                   Keelakarai,
                   Ramanathapuram District

                2. Punitha                                                          ..Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Elancheziyan

For R-1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : A.Kannan

COMMON O R D E R

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the

First Information Report in Crime No. 12 of 2020 on the file of the first

respondent police.

2. According to the petitioners the second respondent gave

complaint before the first respondent and based on that complaint the

first respondent registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2020 for the

offences under Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act. There

are totally five accused in this case. The first accused is the husband of

the second respondent, second and third accused are the father and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

mother of the first accused, fourth accused is the brother of the first

accused and the fifth accused is the sister of the first accused. As per the

prosecution case all the accused persons harassed the defacto

complainant and they demanded additional dowry. At the time of

marriage itself the parents of the defacto complainant presented 40

sovereigns of gold jewels to the defacto complainant and gave five

sovereigns of gold jewels to the first accused and also gifted household

articles worth about Rs.3 lakhs. After marriage all the accused demanded

100 sovereigns of gold jewels and thereby they caused cruelty and also

told that they will sent her away from the matrimonial home. Hence she

gave complaint before the first respondent for which they gave receipt in

C.S.R.No.23 of 2020 and thereafter the matter was enquired and

compromised between the parties. Thereafter the second respondent and

her husband lived separately. After one week the first accused has gone

to Chennai on 03.06.2020 saying that he will bring the household articles

and thereafter he will return. When she contacted him over phone he told

that unless she brings the dowry he can't live with her. Further all the

other accused persons also advised him not to live with her unless the

demand amount is settled to him. Based on the above said complaint this

First Information Report has been registered. Infact the second

respondent has given a false complaint against these petitioners. No such

occurrence took place as alleged by the second respondent. The

petitioners 2 to 4 are no way connected with the family dispute between

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

the first accused and the second respondent. The petitioner in

Crl.O.P(MD) No.14229 of 2021 working as Assistant Engineer in

Highways Department and only inorder to rope her in this case a false

complaint has been given. Even according to the complaint the

allegations are vague, bald and there is no specific allegations as against

these petitioners, hence the First Information Report is liable to be

quashed.

3. No counter was filed by the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

contend that the second respondent gave complaint before the first

respondent stating that the petitioners demanded dowry and thereby

they caused cruelty. The second respondent married the first accused.

The first accused is the husband of the second respondent, second and

third accused are the father and mother of the first accused, fourth

accused is the brother of the first accused and the fifth accused is the

sister of the first accused. The sister of the first accused is the petitioner

in Crl.O.P(MD) No.14229 and 2023 was working in highways department

has been arrayed as fifth accused and inorder to rope her in this case a

false complaint has been given by including the name. The petitioners in

Crl.O.P(MD) No.6116 of 2021 are father, mother and brother of the first

accused i.e., the husband of the second respondent/defacto complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

and they are arrayed as A2 to A4. The averments in the complaint also

does not contain any offence as against the accused persons and the

allegations are vague and general, thereby the First Information Report

is liable to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/defacto complainant would contend that all the accused

persons caused cruelty on the defacto complainant and demanded dowry.

Thereafter some settlement arrived at between the parties despite that

the first accused refused to take the second respondent with her and also

refused to reunion with her and now the second respondent is under the

care and custody of her parents. Based on the complaint given by the

second respondent the first respondent registered First Information

Report and the same is pending. There are prima facie materials

available as against the accused persons and thereby the petition is liable

to be dismissed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

first respondent would contend that based on the complaint given by the

second respondent the first respondent registered First Information

Report and the first respondent has investigated the case and the final

report is made ready. He also produced the CD file of this case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

8. On perusal of the records, it is observed that based on the

complaint given by the second respondent the first respondent registered

First Information Report in Crime No. 12 of 2020. There is no dispute

with regard to the relationship of the parties and these petitioners are

known to the second respondent. There is a matrimonial dispute

between the first accused and the defacto complainant. According to the

petitioners in both petitions they have been falsely implicated and in

order to harass the petitioners this case has been foisted against them.

This Court also perused the compliant and the First Information Report

and on perusal of the same they reveals that there are no specific overt

act as against these petitioners/ accused persons and the allegations

made in the complaint are only general and omnibus allegations. Further

as per the complaint the accused persons advised the first accused not

to live with the defacto complainant until the dowry amount is received.

This allegation is vague and no specific allegation has been made against

these petitioners.

9. This Court perused the CD file. On perusal of the CD file it

reveals that the Social Welfare Officer has also made enquiry and filed

report. As per the report there is no any demand of dowry and the second

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

respondent refused to live with the first accused. Even as per complaint

no offences are made out. It is well settled proposition that for bald and

vague allegations the petitioners need not face trial and under such

circumstances if the petitioners are prosecuted the same is the abuse of

process of law. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kahkashan Kausar and Sonam and Ors.vs. State of Bihar and Ors

in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022, has held as follows:

“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution”

10. On a careful reading of the above judgment it is clear that

the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives

in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute and dowry death. The

relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus

allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime

are made out.

11. In view of the above discussion and the as per the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court that for the vague, general and omnibus

allegations these petitioners need not face the trial, thereby the First

Information Report is liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed

and the First Information Report in Crime No. 12 of 2020 on the file of

the first respondent police is hereby quashed . Consequently connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.




                                                                                     25.08.2023

                Index               : Yes / No
                Internet            : Yes / No
                aav

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

1. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD).No 14229 of 2020 & 6116 of 2021

P.DHANABAL, J.

aav

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.14229 of 2020 and 6116 of 2021

25.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis