Case Title: Dhanapalan and Ors.
Versus
Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, and Anr.
Date of Decision: Reserved On 30.06.2023.
Pronounced On 07.07.2023.
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR.
Citation: CRL.O.P.No.27020 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 16586 & 16587 of 2022
Introduction:
Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.194 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Manargudi. This is the case of matrimonial dispute between the wife and husband. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case in Crime No.11 of 2021 registered mechanically without application of mind by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent failed to note the entire complaint and statement of the witnesses, registered the case under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harrassment of Women Act. The essential ingredients of the provision of Women Harassment like “Any Educational Institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place” never mentioned in the final report filed by the 1st respondent and therefore, the final report itself is liable to be quashed.
Facts:
On 25.10.2013, the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant married one Loganathan, who is arrayed as A1 in this case, at Marina Mahal, Thiruvarur. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gifted 22 Sovereigns of gold jewels to her, 5 Sovereigns to her husband/A1, Maruthi K-10 Car worth about Rs.4.75 Lakhs, along with the utensils, household articles worth about rupees two lakhs. After the marriage, the 1st accused/husband and the petitioners herein, who are in-laws of the defacto complainant, harassed her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and luxury car. At the instigation of A4, A1 had abused and beaten the defacto complainant by demanding more dowry. In the meanwhile, the defacto complainant delivered a female child; her husband/A1 left her in her parental home nearly nine months never bothered to visit and enquire about the second respondent and the new born child and later, on the advice of elders of both sides, she was taken to matrimonial home. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein made comments that the defacto complainant and A1 are dusky skin, but the child is a fair skin, something else in the birth of the child. Since the in-laws are continuously giving torture by demanding dowry, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvarur, the same was taken on file in C.S.R.No.209/2018, after the complaint, A1 endorsed that hereinafter he will never demand dowry. After that, the Company, where A1 working, sent him to the Poland Country, for training. A1 took her along with the child to Poland and continued to harass, gave mental stress to her, at the instance of her in-laws.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
In the charge sheet, except for a general and omnibus allegation, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners more so after return from Poland. Thus, the earlier incidents prior to 09.06.2019, the day when the defacto complainant left to Poland with Loganathan/A1, all condoned. Thereafter only, both Loganathan/A1 and the second respondent/defacto complainant joined together and residing in Poland. During the period of stay in Poland and after return from Poland on 01.07.2020, these petitioners have no role. There is no specific and distinct allegation against them, except for general allegations. The case is an outcome of matrimonial dispute. The Apex Court finding tendency of implicating immediate relations of estranged husband not uncommon, advised to take pragmatic realities into consideration.The return of jewels and car not seriously disputed, recorded in Crl.O.P.No.25050 of 2021. Further, interim maintenance is being paid by Loganathan/A1. From the above order, it is seen that interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to be paid until the issues were resolved at the Mediation Centre. It is seen now the Mediation failed. In view of the same, the petitioners to ensure that Loganathan/A1 to pay Rs.20,000/- as per the earlier order of the Trial Court, unless the said order is modified or cancelled.
On careful perusal of the Charge sheet, the allegations made taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners, who are in-laws. Further, the complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners, who are in-laws of the second respondent/defacto complainant. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
