Madras High CourtCRL OP/7092/2017partly allowed

B.Madhan M/A 36 Years, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

2018-07-06Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.07.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.No.7092 of 2017 and Crl.MP.Nos.5128 & 5129 of 2017 1.B.Madhan 2.Indira Devi 3.Balasubramaniyan 4.Jaya 5.Sudha

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

2.Gomathi ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in FIR No.13/2016 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.N.Kirubanandham For Respondents : Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1 Mr.V.Ragavachari, for R2

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records in FIR No.13/2016 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District and quash the same.

2. On the complaint lodged by Gomathi (second respondent herein), the first respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2016 on 26.09.2016 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against Madhan (A1), Indira Devi (A2), Balasubramaniyan (A3), Jaya (A4) and Sudha (A5), for quashing which, this petition has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant.

4. On a reading of the FIR, it is seen that the de facto complainant got married to Madhan (A1) on 09.04.2014 at Mayiladuthurai and they have one child through the wedlock; that the de facto complainant's mother passed away and thereafter, the accused started torturing her by demanding more and more money as dowry; that the de facto complainant had accompanied Madhan (A1) to Singapore and returned on 05.11.2015 and thereafter, Madhan (A1) had left the de facto complainant in India and gone back to Singapore. Though there are specific overt act attributed against Madhan (A1), Indira Devi (A2) and Balasubramaniyan (A3), this Court does not find any serious allegations as against Jaya (A4) and Sudha (A5), who are the married sisters of Madhan (A1). In fact Sudha (A5) was also in Singapore and it is alleged that when she came to India, she inflicted cruelty on the de facto complainant. In Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273], the Supreme Court has noticed the general tendency to implicate all the family members of the husband in matrimonial cases.

5. In view of the above, the proceedings in Crime No.13 of 2016 as against Jaya (A4) and Sudha (A5) is hereby quashed. The police shall proceed with the further investigation as against Madhan (A1), Indira Devi (A2) and Balasubramaniyan (A3) and complete the same as expeditiously as possible. With the above direction, this petition is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo 1.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No.43882 Crl.O.P.No.7092 of 2017 SPD(CO) GSP(16/07/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/