Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
1.M.Tamilselvam
2.M.Periyakka
3.M.Tamilarasan
4.M.Ponnuchamy
5.M.Suresh
6.Valarmathi : Petitioners
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai All Women Police Station,
Natham,
Dindigul District.
2.Rajeswari : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.49 of 2016
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Natham and quash the same.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Anand
for Mr.D.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,
Standing Counsel for the State
for R.1
Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu for R.2
*****
ORDER
This criminal original petition is filed by the accused
nos.1, 3 to 7 in C.C.No.49 of 2016 on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, to
quash the proceedings pending against them.
2. The second respondent / defacto complainant lodged a
complaint in Crime No.29 of 2014 that she married the first
petitioner on 11.03.2011 and at the time of marriage, 20
Sovereigns of gold jewel, Rs.80,000/- in cash, apart from a
two wheeler, was given as sreethana articles. Out of the
wedlock, she also gave birth to a child on 14.05.2012 and
thereafter, the petitioners have harassed the second
respondent for want of additional dowry and jewels and also
intimidated that they would arrange marriage to the first
petitioner, if she fails to satisfy their demands. The
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
second respondent was also driven out of the matrimonial
home on 15.08.2013 and thereafter, neither the first
petitioner nor the family members have visited her. When
the second respondent and her parents attempted to solve
the dispute amicably and went to the first petitioner’s
house on 10.10.2014, the petitioners abused them with
filthy language and also criminally intimidated them.
Therefore, she has lodged a complaint before the first
respondent police on 14.12.2014 and based on that
complaint, a case in Crime No.29 of 2014 was registered for
the offence under Sections 498A, 506(i) IPC and Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. The first respondent police
conducted investigation, examined nine witnesses and filed
a final report as against the petitioners on 07.05.2015 and
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, has taken the
final report on file in C.C.No.49 of 2016. Aggrieved over
the same, the petitioners have preferred this quash
petition.
3. Mr.C.Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that there is no marriage at all
between the first petitioner and the second respondent. The
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
second respondent, in her complaint, has stated that she
was already married to one Raju and her marriage with the
said Raju was dissolved on 10.03.2011 and thereafter, she
married the first petitioner on 11.03.2011. However, there
no valid documents were produced that her marriage with the
said Raju was dissolved in the manner known to law. When
the earlier marriage was in existence, the alleged marriage
said to have taken place on 11.03.2011 between the second
respondent and the first petitioner is of nullity and when
there is no marriage at all, the offence under Section 498A
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act would not
attracted. He further submitted that for the criminal
intimidation said to have been taken place on 10.10.2014,
the complaint was lodged only on 14.12.2014, after a delay
of two months. Therefore, the offence under Section 506(i)
IPC is also not attracted.
4. Learned Counsel has relied upon the order passed by
the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Natham, in M.C.No.4 of 2015, dated 10.06.2019 as well as
the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Dindigul, in Crl.R.C.No.21 of 2019, dated
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
21.11.2020 and submitted that the proceedings initiated as
against the first petitioner for maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C., was rejected by the Courts below, after a well
considered trial, that there is no material to substantiate
that there was any marriage solemnized between the first
petitioner and the second respondent. The learned Counsel
has also referred to the relevant portions of the orders,
wherein, the Courts have categorically held that the
earlier marriage of the second respondent / defacto
complainant with one Raju was not dissolved in the manner
known to law and no documents have been placed before it to
substantiate that there was any marriage taken place
between the first petitioner and the second respondent. The
Courts have held that there was no proof of any invitation
or any photograph or any other materials placed before it
to substantiate that there was any marriage solemnized
between the first petitioner and the second respondent.
5. Learned Counsel has also referred to the statements
recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., of one Nagaraj
[LW2], father of the second respondent and one Muthaiah
[LW5], who was also cited as a witness in the maintenance
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
proceedings by the second respondent. Both these witnesses
have also stated that there was a marriage in existence
between the second respondent / defacto complainant and one
Raju and after dissolving the marriage, the second
respondent has married the first petitioner on 11.03.2011.
However, both the Courts below have elaborately discussed
with regard to the possibility of any marriage solemnized
between the first petitioner and the second respondent and
rejected the claim of the second respondent for maintenance
that there was no marriage between the first petitioner and
the second respondent.
6. As per Section 498A IPC, if the husband or the
relative of the husband subjects such woman to cruelty, he
or they are liable for punishment. For better appreciation,
Section 498A IPC is extracted as follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty:-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
7. But, in this case, it appears that there is no
material to substantiate that there was any marriage
between the first petitioner and the second respondent. In
the earlier proceedings, which were also referred to by the
petitioners’ Counsel, wherein the first petitioner and the
second respondent were parties, there is a clear finding to
the effect that there was no material, no invitation, no
photograph, nothing, to substantiate that there was any
marriage solemnized between the first petitioner and the
second respondent. Moreover, it is an admitted case that
the second respondent was married to one Raju and though
she claimed that the said marriage was dissolved, there is
no document to substantiate that the marriage between the
second respondent and Raju was dissolved in the manner
known to law. In the absence of any material, the alleged
marriage between the first petitioner and the second
respondent is void, as such, the second respondent cannot
maintain a case as against the petitioners for the offence
under Section 498A IPC.
8. The demand of dowry as alleged in the complaint as
well as in the final report is that after one year from the
7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
date of marriage, dated 11.03.2011, the petitioners
demanded some dowry from the second respondent. Therefore,
a charge has been levelled under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. But the allegation raised by the second
respondent is vague without any material particulars. Since
there is no material that there was any marriage between
the first petitioner and the second respondent; and that
the second respondent was already married to one Raju and
that marriage was also in existence, this Court, in the
absence of any material particulars, is not inclined to
accept the vague allegation of dowry demand.
9. Insofar as the offence of criminal intimidation is
concerned, the alleged intimidation was said to have been
taken place on 10.10.2014, whereas, the complaint was
lodged only on 14.12.2014. In order to attract the offence
under Section 506(i) IPC, the complainant should have felt
the intimidation. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged
after a period of two months and therefore, it cannot be
termed that the complainant felt the intimidation alleged
to have made by the accused and as such, the offence under
Section 506(i) IPC is not made out.
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
10. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is
inclined to quash the impugned charge sheet and
accordingly, the charge sheet in C.C.No.49 of 2016 on the
file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Natham, is quashed insofar as the petitioners
are concerned.
11. In fine, this criminal original petition stands
allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
Index : Yes / No 30.06.2021
gk
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Natham.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai All Women Police Station,
Natham,
Dindigul District.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Crl.OP(MD)No.10932 of 2017
30.06.2021
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
