Allowed

Baby v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2011CRL OP/1732/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench of the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the complainant, in a Section 498-A case. Relying on Section 482 CrPC, the court held that the petitioners faced no legal evidence and continuation of the case was an abuse of process of law, noting no specific allegations against them during the alleged incident period.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.225 of 2009 quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned.

Baby Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 3-3-2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.1732 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 2010

¶6

1.Baby
2.S. Jeganathan ... Petitioners
vs

¶7

State rep by The Inspector of Police All Women's Police Sttion Thiruppur, Thiruppur District Cr.No.21 of 2009

¶8

Anuradha ... Respondents (Impleaded as per the order of this Court dt.18.3.2010 in MP 3/2010)

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the reliefs as stated therein.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.P. Madhan For 2^nd respondent: Mr.S. Arivazhagan For 1^st respondent : Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah APP ORDER

¶11

By consent of both sides, the matter has been taken up for final hearing. The petitioners herein, who have been arrayed as A.2 and A.3 in C.C.No.225 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur, seek for a direction to call for the records relating to the above said calendar case and to quash the same.

¶12

Factual aspects involved are briefly outlined below for better appreciation.

¶13

The 2^nd respondent herein is the wife of one Shanmuga Raja and the petitioners herein are her in-laws. The marriage between the said Shanmuga Raja and the 2^nd respondent took place on 26.4.2004 and out of the wed-lock, the 2^nd respondent gave birth to a male child on 24.2.2005. It is alleged by the 2^nd

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

respondent/defacto-complainant that her husband used to drink and assault her demanding money and jewels as dowry.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioners is that they were also in support of the husband of the defacto-complainant. According to the defacto-complainant, she was driven out of the matrimonial house and was living with her parents for some time and in the year 2009, there was a conciliation and on advice of the elders, she was sent along with her husband to Tiruppur where he was employed. Even in Tirupur, on the next day itself, the husband started ill treating her and was demanding money, cash and jewels. On 3.3.2009, her husband left her and she found that he had taken all the jewels along with him and therefore, she had given a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Tirupur on 26.3.2009, which was registered in Cr.No.21 of 2009 for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.225 of 2009 for the offence under Sec.498-A against the petitioners also for having abetted the offence. Aggrieved by the case having been taken cognizance against the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the defactocomplaint, they have filed the present petition to quash the proceedings.

¶17

Mr.P.Madhan , the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no specific allegation in the complaint given by the defacto-complainant against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel further submits that the husband has filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage under sec.13(1) of the Hindu Marriages Act, which is pending and as a counter blast, the complaint dated 26.3.2009, with the allegation of dowry harassment, which led to the proceeding under challenge, having came to be lodged. The learned counsel pointed out that even the allegations in the first information report do not constitute any offence as against the petitioners and therefore, the entire proceedings in so far as the petitioners are concerned are liable to be quashed.

¶18

On the contrary, Mr.S. Arivazhagan, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant would submit that only at the instigation of the petitioners, the husband committed the offence under Sec.498-A IPC and the actuality or otherwise of the allegations have to be gone into and decided only in the course of trial and therefore, proceedings need not be interfered with at this stage.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that after through investigation charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file in CC No.225 of 2009 and is pending trial.

¶20

Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

It is well settled that in any criminal proceedings, after filing of the charge sheet, usually the court will not interfere invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C unless it is shown that continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of process of law. The Court is not expected to analyse the evidence at this stage to come to a conclusion whether a case has been made out for conviction of the accused or not.

¶23

The genesis of the present criminal proceedings is on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent on 26.3.2009. The alleged offence is stated to have been committed between 27.2.2009 and 3.3.2009. It is alleged that immediately after the birth of the child in 2005, the husband of the defacto-complainant started assaulting the petitioner, and demanded dowry by way of cash and jewels. It is alleged that ",jw;F vd; fzthpd; jha;. je;ijahd n$/nggp/ v!;/ b$fehjd; Mfpnahh; cle;ijahf ,Ue;jdh;/"

¶24

It is said that thereafter the defacto-complainant left her matrimonial home and was living with her parents till 2009. Only thereafter, she has joined with her husband and started living with him at Tirupur. It is specifically alleged that between 27.2.2009 and 3.3.2009, the husband of the defactocomplainant subjected her to cruelty.

¶25

It is well settled that in matrimonial disputes, when there was a conciliation between the parties, later the defactocomplainant cannot level any charge on the earlier allegations of dowry demand or cruelty, except on any subsequent occurrences. Even according to the complainant, the petitioners said to be in support of her husband when he started ill treating her in the year 2005. Thereafter, she had left the matrimonial home. Only in 2009, there was re-union and she started living with her husband at Tiruppur. The alleged cruelty by the husband was of the period between 27.2.2009 and 3.3.2009 and there is no allegation of involvement of the petitioners during that relevant period.

¶26

That being the case, there is no legal evidence available against the petitioners and the continuance of the proceedings against them before the trial court is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶27

Under such circumstances, the present matter being one of the fit case, this court has no hesitation to exercise its power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the proceedings on insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶28

In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.225 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur are quashed insofar as

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

the petitioners are concerned. It is needless to mention that the proceedings as against the accused/husband will go on and the case will be disposed of in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Mps are closed.

¶31

Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
sr
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Thiruppur.
2. The Inspector of Police
All Women's Police Sttion
Thiruppur, Thiruppur District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai
+1cc to Mr.P.Madhan, Advocate Sr 16341
RK(CO)
km/16.3.
Crl.O.P.No.1732/2010

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Baby v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Kasthuri Vs State Rep by

Thiru.Cyrus Guzdar Vs N.Kumar Kesavan

Manikandan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Il Sung Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sivakumar

Venkatesh Vs Inspector of Police

K.Mani Vs the State Rep by