Madras High Court
Dhilip Seshan vs The Station House Officer on 7 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15998 & 15999 of 2019
1.Dhilip Seshan
2.P.Suganthi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District,
(Crime No.7 of 2019)
2.Guna ... Respondents
PRAYER: Transfer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the records relating to C.C. No.79/2019 before
the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.G.Nivedita
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran Addl. Public Prosecutor[R.1]
: Mr.J.Ravi Kumar [R.2]
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
ORDER
The petition is to quash the final report filed for the alleged offences
under Sections 498 (A), 406, 294(b), & 506 IPC.
2. It is alleged in the final report that the 1st petitioner and the de
facto complainant were in love with each other and got married on
19.03.2013; that the accused/petitioners started demanding dowry and
abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and caused cruelty on
account of the said dowry demand; that the accused demanded
Rs.30,00,000/- and since the de facto complainant did not accede to the said
demand, they had caused cruelty; that the 1st petitioner had also made
threats stating that if the 2nd respondent did not agree to divorce, she would
have to face serious consequences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the FIR
was registered without conducting any preliminary inquiry in violation of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh and other reported in [2014 (2) SCC (1)].
Further, the final report without proper investigation was filed in a hurried
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
manner. The allegations are false and matrimonial differences between the
husband and wife are sought to be projected as a case of dowry harassment.
The learned counsel further pointed out some earlier proceedings prior to
the registration of FIR, where the 1st petitioner complained of harassment
by the police at the instance of the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent would however submit that the allegations attract the
offences alleged in the final report. There are serious allegations against the
petitioners and this has to be adjudicated only during trial.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further pointed out
some earlier orders passed by this Court in the Civil Revision Petition
wherein this Court had observed that the 1st petitioner was avoiding due
process of the Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st
petitioner had continuously violated the orders passed by this Court and a
non-bailable warrant is also pending against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
6. This Court finds that there are allegations to proceed against the 1st
petitioner. Further, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent, this Court is not inclined to entertain the quash
petition so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned. However, it is open to the
1st petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court.
7. As regards the 2nd petitioner, this Court is of the view that this is a
case of love marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
The allegations against the 2nd petitioner that, at the instigation of her, the
1st petitioner had demanded the dowry and had harassed the 2nd respondent
is vague. This Court is of the view that the 2nd petitioner ought not to be
prosecuted on the basis of such vague allegations. Hence, this Court is of
the view that the impugned final report is liable to the quashed in so far as
the 2nd petitioner alone is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The Trial
Court may proceed with the trial of the 1st petitioner as expeditiously as
possible.
07.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
shr
To.
1. The Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
shr
Crl.O.P.No.29613 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15998 & 15999 of 2019
07.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
