Madras High Court
S.Chandrasekar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 September, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 11.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19299 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.11908 and 11909 of 2024
1.S.Chandrasekar
2.C.Dhanalakshmi
3.C.Seethalakshmi
4.R.Senthil Kumr
5.G.Vijayalakshmi
6.V.Ramalingam ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.7 of 2023) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Kavitha ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023,
to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.97 of 2024
pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
Magistrate, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District and quash the same as against the
petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand
For R-1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for quashing of the final report filed in
C.C.No.97 of 2024 for the offences under Section 498(A), 406 and 506(1) IPC.
2. The petitioners are the in-laws and other relatives of the husband of the
defacto complainant/second respondent and arrayed as A2 to A7 in the final
report. The husband of the defacto complainant is arrayed as A1 and is not a
party to this quash petition. The allegation in the final report is that the defacto
complainant and the first accused got married on 01.02.2023; that 70
sovereigns of gold jewels, sridhana articles worth Rs.1,22,000/-, 10 sovereigns
of gold jewels to the first accused besides household and silver articles worth
Rs.1,72,000/-, were given to the first accused; that since the first accused was
running a shop in Trichy, the defacto complainant went to Trichy to live with
the first accused, where A2 to A5, namely, the petitioners 1 to 4 were living
along with the first accused as a joint family; that A6, who was living in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
Bangalore, would often visit the matrimonial house of the defacto complainant;
that right from the day of marriage, the second petitioner (A3) had committed
cruelty by not offering food to the defacto complainant; that the first accused
used to return home in an inebriated condition every night and cause hurt to the
defacto complainant; that the first accused did not indulge in conjugal
relationship with the defacto complainant; that at the instance of the petitioners,
namely, A2 to A7, the first accused had constantly abused her in filthy
language; and that the petitioners thereafter demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
and 20 sovereigns of gold to permit the defacto complainant to have conjugal
relationship with the first accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a case of
matrimonial difference between the second respondent and the first accused has
been projected as a case of cruelty, misappropriation and criminal intimidation;
that there are no allegations of cruelty as against the petitioners; that the third
petitioner is the younger sister of the first accused and is yet to get married
because of the false case; that the petitioners 4, 5 and 6 are distant relatives and
have no connection with the matrimonial affairs of the first accused and the
second respondent; that in any case, the allegations would not attract the
offences and that the impugned prosecution was initiated on the complaint of
the defacto complainant after she had received the notice in the divorce petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
filed by the first accused; that the impugned prosecution is contrary to the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to prosecuting the
relatives of the husband under Section 498A IPC and relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana
and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 and the judgment of this
Court in the case of Neelavathi and another Vs. Inspector of Police and
another reported in (2023) 1 MWN (Cri) 632.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit
that the question as to whether the allegations against the petitioners would
constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC cannot be gone into in a quash
petition; that the prosecution had cited several witnesses including the parents
of the defacto complainant; and that the prosecution cannot be quashed at the
initial stage itself.
5. Though notice has been served on the second respondent and her name
is printed in the cause list, none has entered appearance.
6. The father and mother of the first accused are the petitioners 1 and 2.
(A2 & A3). The third petitioner (A4) is the unmarried younger sister of the first
accused and living with her parents along with the first accused. The fourth
petitioner (A5) is the distant relative of the first accused and the fifth petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
(A6) is the elder sister of the second petitioner. Admittedly, the fifth petitioner
(A6) is living in Bangalore. The sixth petitioner (A7) is the grandfather aged
about 85 years. The petitioners 4 and 6 are distant relatives and living
separately in Thiruvarur District. A reading of the FIR, the statements recorded
by the Police and the final report would indicate that there were matrimonial
differences between the first accused and the defacto complainant. The main
grievance of the second respondent appears to be that the marriage was not
consummated. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they demanded
dowry to permit the defacto complainant to have conjugal relationship with the
first accused. The allegation against the petitioners is inherently improbable and
opposed to common sense as the conjugal relationship between husband and
wife cannot be dictated or controlled by any third party. There is no other
allegation against any of the petitioners except against the second petitioner,
who is said to have not provided food to the defacto complainant. The
prosecution clearly appears to be one instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance and to arm-twist the first accused. There is no allegation
that the petitioners had misappropriated the jewels or sridhana articles of the
defacto complainant. According to the petitioners, the first accused had filed a
petition for divorce against the second respondent, even before the filing of
FIR, which has resulted in the impugned final report, in H.M.O.P No.362 of
2023 on the file of the Family Court, Trichy, which was subsequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
transferred to the file of the Family Court, Thoothukudi.
7. It is further seen that this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.20618 of 2023,
which was filed challenging the FIR, had also passed an order dated
17.11.2023, which reads as follows:
“2. In the mean time, investigation may go on, but subject to
the result of this petition, Final Report shall be filed.”
8. It appears that even before the above quash petition was finally
decided, the impugned final report was filed before the jurisdictional
Magistrate. Be that as it may. The allegation in order to attract Section 498A
IPC has to be one that suggests cruelty in connection with dowry demand or
cruelty of such a nature that would drive a woman to commit suicide. Even
assuming that the allegations against the petitioners are true, the said
allegations would not constitute the cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A
IPC. The allegations against the petitioners would also not constitute the
offence under Section 506(1) IPC, as there was no real threat, which is an
essential requirement to attract the offence of criminal intimidation. Further,
there is no allegation of misappropriation of any property against these
petitioners to attract Section 406 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
9. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the
impugned prosecution as against these petitioners, namely, the parents, sister
and distant relatives of the first accused, against whom improbable and vague
allegations have been made, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned
final report is quashed as against the petitioners herein and the Criminal
Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
15.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
To
1.The Principal District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19299 of 2024
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Lm
Crl.O.P(MD).No.19299 of 2024
15.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
