CRL.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
Crl.MP.Nos.16934, 18814, 18817 17629 of 2019
D.Mani Teja … Petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.31129 of 2019
1. K.Arunprakash
2. A.Kayamboo
3. B.Gandhimathi
4. Abinaya … Petitioners in
Crl.O.P.No.32100 of 2019
Vs.
1. The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Womens Police Station,
Tambaram, Chennai.
(Crime No.33/2019)
2. Elaveni
W/o.Arunprakash … Respondents in both
Crl.O.Ps.
PRAYER in both petitions: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Crime No.33 of
2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Tambaram, Chennai viz., the first respondent herein and quash the same.
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
For Petitioners
in both Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.V.Vijayashankar
For Respondents
in both Crl.O.Ps.
For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.S.Vasu
ORDER
These petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Tambaram, Chennai, registered for the offences under Sections
498(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC Section 4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, as against the petitioners.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent alleging
that the first petitioner got married the second respondent on 05.12.2016
and they stayed along with the parents of the first petitioner. Due to their
wed lock a male child was born on 19.11.2017. Thereafter, the second
respondent was harassed physically and mentally by all the accused
persons, since all are residing in joint family. They also demanded more
dowry and jewels and gold ornaments were kept in their custody. The
2/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
first petitioner also used to slapped her on demanding dowry and also
scold in filthy language. On receipt of the same the first respondent
registered the FIR in Crime No. 33 of 2019 as against 5 persons, in which
the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.32100 of 2019 are arrayed as A1 to A4 and
the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.31129 of 2019 is arrayed as A5.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended
that due to misunderstanding between the first petitioner and the second
respondent, they got separated and the attempts of reconciliation were
not fruitful. Therefore the first petitioner/husband filed petition for
restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.878 of 2018 on the file of
the Sub Court, Tambaram. He also filed G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2019 for
guardianship of his minor child, before the District Court, Chengalpet.
Thereafter, the second respondent/defacto complainant lodged complaint
before the Tamilnadu State Women’s Commission and also concerned
Protection Officer. Both the complaints were closed as false and baseless.
3/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
4. Further contended that the second respondent filed divorce
petition in O.P.No.2016 of 2019 before the VI Additional Family Court,
Chennai. She also filed Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition in
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.418 and 419 of 2019 before this Court to transfer the
petitions filed by the first petitioner to the VI Additional Family Court,
Chennai. This Court allowed the transfer petitions and transfered the
petitions filed by the first petitioner to the VI Additional Family Court,
Chennai. In fact, the petitioner also permitted visitation right of his minor
child on every first Saturday of the month. While being so, the present
complaint has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations.
5. Heard Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Vasu, learned
counsel appearing for the second respondent.
6. On perusal of records, the allegations made in the divorce
petition in H.M.O.P.No.2016 of 2019 are completely different from the
4/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
allegations made in the present complaint in Crime No.33 of 2019. The
complaint lodged only on 25.10.2019 and on perusal of complaint all the
allegations are bald and vague and there is no specific allegations as
against the petitioners. Further initially the first petitioner filed restitution
of conjugal right petition and also filed guardianship petition. The second
respondent appeared in both matters and also filed transfer petitions
before this Court in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.418 419 of 2019 and this Court
allowed the petitions and both petitions have been transfered to the VI
Additional Family Court, Chennai, to tried along with the divorce
petition in O.P.No.2016 of 2019. Therefore, the present FIR is nothing
but clear abuse of process of law and only to harass the petitioners, the
present FIR has been filed.
7. This Court finds some force in the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and pending of the FIR would not
serve any purpose further any more. Further there is absolutely no prima
facie case to attract any of the offences alleged by the second respondent
herein.
5/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
8. In view of the above discussions, both the criminal original
petitions are allowed and the FIR in Crime No.33 of 2019 on the file of
the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai,
is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.03.2020
Internet:Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rts
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Womens Police Station,
Tambaram, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
6/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Crl.O.P.Nos.31129 32100 of 2019
Crl.MP.Nos.16934, 18814, 18817
17629 of 2019
11.03.2020
7/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
