Madras High Court Bhuvaneswari And Thiagarajan-vs-State Rep. By Sub Inspector Of on 1 August, 2003
Author: V Kanagaraj
Bench: V Kanagaraj
V. Kanagaraj, J.
1. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 250 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Cuddalore and quash the same against the petitioners/Accused No. 4 & 5.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side.
3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the petitioners are the 4th and 5th accused in the above C.C. No. 250 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Cuddalore; that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Sangeetha, W/o Madhavan, the respondent had laid a charge sheet against the petitioners and three others for the alleged offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; that the first accused in this case namely Madhavan is the husband of the said complainant, the 2nd and 3rd accused are respectively father and mother of the first accused, the first petitioner herein (A4) is the sister of the first accused and the second petitioner herein (A5) is the husband of the first petitioner.
4. The petitioners would further submit that the allegation that the petitioners are also residing at Kannarapettai, Cuddalore O.T. along with the accused No.1 to 3 as joint family is utterly false and deliberately made by the complainant solely for the purpose of implicating the petitioners in the alleged commission of the offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; that neither the first petitioner nor the 2nd petitioner had any occasion to leave their house at MMDA, J.J. Nagar, Chennai leaving the ailing mother of the 2nd petitioner unattended and go to the house of the first accused at Kannarapettai, Cuddalore.
5. The petitioners would further submit that it is pertinent to note that no specific date has been mentioned in para 5 on which date the petitioners/accused were giving suggestions to the 3rd accused to kill her, beat her with broomstick and the head was dashed against the wall; that because of the fact that the 2nd petitioner/5th accused is a Bank Employee he can very easily disprove the allegations in the complaint by producing documentary evidence to prove his presence at the bank at the relevant point of time; that the complainant had not mentioned specifically in the complaint that at least a particular single day when she is alleged to have been treated cruelly by the accused in this case; that except the allegation in para 5 of the complaint, absolutely there is no reference to the petitioners in any part of the complaint and this special feature undoubtedly creates a doubt about the bona fides of the complaint; that the date of offence and the place of offence are also not specifically mentioned in the complaint or in any subsequent statement which by itself will show that such an imaginary allegation is made falsely for the purpose of the police apart from the fact that no specific charge can be framed except making a compendious and omnibus statement that she was subjected to various types of cruelty by the petitioners and the other accused. On such averments, the petitioners would pray for the relief extracted supra.
6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would not only lay emphasis on the facts pleaded, but also cause production of the attendance register of the State Bank of India, Small Scale Industries Branch, Chennai from April 1999 till 26.7.2003 for the second petitioner having regularly attended to the office and the cause of action period vaguely alleged to have taken place in between 22.4.1999 and 3.2.2002 for the commission of the offence of such sort said to have occurred so as to register a case against the petitioners also under Section 498A, 342 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and any one going through the attendance register has no reason to arrive at the conclusion to hold that at any point of time the petitioners would have resided nearby the place of residence of the defacto complainant at Cuddalore and hence the very allegation that the petitioners are residents of Kannarapettai, Cuddalore Taluk is false and therefore, the learned counsel would plead for the benefit of law and the inherent powers of this Court to be exercised to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners/accused No. 4 and 5.
7. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent would also be convinced on going through the attendance register to the falsity of the complaint on the face of it so far as the case registered by the respondent for the commission of the offence of such nature as against the petitioners also and would leave it to the court for its decision.
8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, this Court is of the view that on the face of the FIR no prima facie case is made out on the ingredients of the complaint and the documents produced would only show that there is absolutely no ground to think that the petitioners were at any point of time during the relevant period in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place have resided at the place called Kannarapettai, Cuddalore Taluk and hence easy conclusions could be arrived at to the effect that the case as registered against the petitioners is ex facie mala fide and becomes liable to be quashed and the same is decided accordingly.
(i) the above Criminal Original Petition succeeds and the same is allowed;
(ii) the case registered by the respondent against the petitioners in their Crime No. 21 of 2002 dated 2.3.2002 under Sections 498A, 342 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act so far as it is concerned with the petitioners/4th and 5th accused is quashed;
(iii) consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 6551 of 2003 is closed.