IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2019
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.7095 of 2013
M.P.No.1 of 2013
Raja Jayapandian … Petitioner/2nd Respondent
Mrs.Thangabhanumathi … Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and to quash all
further proceedings in M.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the XXIII
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Goviganesan
Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records and to
quash all further proceedings in M.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the
XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
2.The petitioner is the second respondent in M.C.No.15 of
2012 pending on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
3.The respondent is the daughter-in-law and the petitioner
4.The respondent had filed a case under Domestic Violence
Act against the petitioner and his son seeking Protection order
under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act.
5.The Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is
residing at Madurai and his son Muthu Kumar was married to the
respondent were residing separately at Nesapakkam, Chennai from
the date of their marriage. Hence, there is no occasion for the
petitioner to indulge in domestic violence.
6.The gist of the complaint is that the marriage between the
petitioner’s son viz., Muthu Kumar and the respondent had taken
place on 15.02.2009 at Madurai. During the marriage, the parents
of the respondent had given 150 sovereigns of gold jewels and
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) worth house hold articles as
sridhana. The petitioner’s son was working in Aircel as an Officer.
From ten days after the marriage, the petitioner’s son and the
respondent were living separately at Chennai. Out of their marriage
a girl baby was born on 11.12.2009. Whenever the petitioner used
to visit them he used to speak in double language filthy words. The
respondent had complained about the same to her mother-in-law
and to her husband. Both of them had not cared about it. The
petitioner’s son had given a false complaint that the respondent had
attempted suicide. During the enquiry on 21.02.2011 the petitioner
was warned by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station,
Madurai City and not to enter the matrimonial house.
7.In the meanwhile, the respondent became pregnant against
her wish and aborted the same. The respondent’s husband had
demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) for the purchase
of a house. On 20.08.2011, the respondent’s father died. Three
months thereafter the petitioner’s son had demanded share in the
family property. Further they had also given a false complaint, as
though, the respondent was having illegal relationship with one
Kannan. An enquiry was conducted on 05.12.2011, they were
called and warned for making such allegation. For the marriage of
the petitioner’s second son Rs.5,00,000/- of dowry was demanded
from the respondent and the respondent had given a complaint
before the All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar. Since the
respondent’s father recently passed away and the respondent was
not allowed into the matrimonial house, she gave a complaint
before the All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar. The petitioner’s
son had also filed a divorce petition before the III Additional Family
8.The petitioner’s son had deserted the respondent and the
respondent was living alone with her infant seeking Residential
order, Protection order and Return of her sridhana articles. She had
preferred a complaint before the Protection Officer. The Protection
Officer had forwarded a Domestic Incident Report to the concerned
Court. Thereafter, the concerned Court, took cognizance of the
case and sent summons to the petitioner and his son, against which
the present quash petition is filed.
9.The contention of the petitioner is that even according to
the respondent ten days after the marriage (15.02.2009), the
respondent was living separately at Chennai and the petitioner was
the residing at Madurai. They never lived in the shared house hold.
The respondent was not a normal person and she suffered mental
disorder and attempted suicide and she was even given treatment
as inpatient on 26.05.2011. The respondent attempted to commit
suicide by taking over dose of pills which was prescribed for her
mental disorder, due to which she was rushed to Vijaya Hospital for
giving treatment. During the treatment, her pregnancy was
terminated as a part of the medical treatment and the petitioner
was nothing to do with the same.
10.Further the respondent had illegal intimacy with one
Kannan, who is the college mate of the respondent and the
relationship of the said Kannan and the respondent continued
against the wish of the petitioner and his family members.
Thereafter a police complaint was filed before the Villakuthoon
Police Station, Madurai and the petitioner’s son had also filed
H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2012 before the III Additional Judge, Madurai.
The respondent was in the habit of given false complaint against the
petitioner and his family members and a case in Crime No.14 of
2012 came to be registered under Section 498(A), 406, 312, 294(b)
IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.
Thereafter a charge memo came to be filed in C.C.No.1164 of 2013
before the XXVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. After the full-
fledged trial the Metropolitan Magistrate had rendered a Judgment
of acquittal on 05.08.2018.
11.The respondent had also filed H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2017
seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The III Additional Judge,
Madurai by a common Judgment dated 12.09.2017 had dismissed
the H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2017 filed by the respondent, wherein the
relationship between the respondent and the said Kannan have
been elaborately discussed. Further the Lower Court had granted
divorce to the petitioner’s son by set aside the marriage dated
15.02.2009. Both the Criminal Court as well as the Family Court
had elaborately analysed the evidences and had given a clear and
categorical finding that the petitioner had never lived together in a
shared house hold and the petitioner residing at Madurai and the
respondent at Chennai have been confirmed. Further the relief
sought by the respondent is only against the said Muthu Kumar and
hence sought the above case against him to be quashed.
12.The respondent had opposed the quash petition stating
that the respondent has put to unbearable suffering. Whenever the
petitioner used to visit his son Muthu Kumar he used to utter illicit
comments. His intention and approach towards the respondent was
with bad intention and though the respondent had complained about
the same to her mother-in-law and to her husband they had ignored
the same and had not protected her. The demand for dowry was
there right from the marriage and the demand was continuous. The
abortion of the second pregnancy was forcibly done against her
wish. The petitioner’s son had deserted the matrimonial home
leaving the respondent and her infant baby and also further failed to
make the EMI payment for the house in which they were residing
and she was to be forcibly evicted from the house. No family
maintenance was paid and the respondent was not taken care by
her husband and hence the respondent had filed a complaint before
the Protection Officer and thereafter, due enquiry the above case
came to be filed.
12.Considering the rival submission and the materials, it is
found that the respondent was not in the normal mental state and
she was taking medical treatment for the same. On one occasion
she had consumed over dosage of medicines prescribed for her
mental health. Thereafter she was rushed to the Vijaya Hospital
and during treatment her pregnancy was terminated, for which the
petitioner could not be found faulted.
13.Further it is an admitted case of the respondent that ten
days after their marriage, the respondent and her husband Muthu
Kumar were living separately at Chennai. The petitioner was living
in Madurai with his family and they did not share the common house
hold. With regard to the other allegations, the XXIII Metropolitan
Magistrate had rendered a Judgment dated 05.10.2018 in
C.C.No.1164 of 2013 and the III Additional Judge, Madurai by a
common Judgment in H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2017 and H.M.O.P.No.22
of 2012 dated 12.09.2017, elaborately analysed the evidences and
acquitted the petitioner and his family members for the dowry
demand, harassment, cruelty and other offences. The Family Court
Madurai found the contention of the respondent are not sustainable.
The petitioner’s son was granted divorce. The pith and substance of
the cases are same.
14.In view of the same the proceedings as against the
petitioner in M.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet is hereby quashed.
15.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
1.The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Crl.O.P.No.7095 of 2013