Allowed

V.Geethalakshmi v. P.Manjula

Madras HC25 Oct 2018CRL OP/18206/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings in a dowry harassment case against the petitioner, sister-in-law of an accused. The court held that a related application found the allegations of jewel misappropriation by the petitioner to be totally false, rendering the remaining charge against her a mere aftercoat party with no prima facie case. The proce

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.498 of 2011 are quashed. The Judicial Magistrate is directed to proceed against other accused persons uninfl

V.Geethalakshmi Vs P.Manjula — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18206 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

V.Geethalakshmi ...Petitioner Vs. P.Manjula ...Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.498 of 2011 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram, and quash the proceedings therein against the petitioner herein.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan For M/s.V.J.Latha For Respondent : Mr.C.Prabhakaran O R D E R

¶9

This petition has been filed by the accused No.2 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.498 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

¶10

The respondent herein is the wife of petitioner's brother viz.,S.Muralidharan. The said Muralidharan and the respondent herein got married on 01.04.2009. The said marriage was an arranged marriage. Thereafter, the respondent herein and her husband Muralidharan were leading marital life for some time and thereafter some mis-understanding arose between them. So, she filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, stating that her husband and his family members caused cruelty by demanding dowry and also criminally intimidated her. She also stated that in the said complaint, at the instigation of the petitioner herein, the first accused compelled to give her jewels worth about 42 sovereigns and hence, she handed over her jewels to her husband (first accused) and subsequently, they did not return the same and hence her husband (first accused) and his family members have committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 420, 406 and 506(2) IPC. Based on the said complaint, the learned Judicial

¶11

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

¶12

Magistrate, Tambaram, has taken the case on file in C.C.No.498 of 2011, and issued summons to the accused persons. The petitioner herein who has been arrayed as accused No.2, after receipt of the summons, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.498 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is the sister-in-law of the respondent i.e, sister of accused No.1. He further submitted that the only allegation made in the complaint against the petitioner herein is that (The first accused) asked her to give her Jewels to the petitioner herein because she needs the said jewels for a function and the first accused promised that the said jewels will be returned in time and on believing his words, he handed over her jewels of 42 sovereigns to her husband and subsequently, the said jewels were not returned. He further submitted that even in the said complaint, she has not specifically stated that she handed over the said jewels to the petitioner herein and on the contrary, she has stated that she handed over the said jewels only to her husband (accused No.1). He further submitted that with the same allegations, the respondent herein has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and in the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an order on 29.04.2016 observing that the allegations that the respondent herein has handed over the 42 sovereign of jewels to her husband cannot be accepted and therefore, the allegations that the jewels were handed over to the first accused and through him, the petitioner herein has received the said jewels and misappropriated the same is totally false. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.498 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram against the petitioner herein.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioner herein is the sister of first accused, she along with the first accused demanded dowry from the respondent and also caused cruelty. He further submitted that the petitioner herein made a request to the respondent to handover her jewels, as the said jewels are required for a function and on believing her words, the respondent has handed over 42 sovereign of jewels, but, subsequently, the petitioner herein conspired with the accused No.1 refused to return the same and hence, the complaint prima facie disclose offences against the petitioner herein and therefore, he requests to dismiss the petition.

¶15

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

¶16

In paragraph 10 of the complaint, the respondent herein has stated that the petitioner got married thirteen years ago and the first accused will dance according to the tunes of the petitioner herein. She further stated that when she slept, the first accused wake up and asked jewels from her since the petitioner herein needs the jewels for a function. She further stated that the first accused promised that the said jewels will be returned in time and on believing his words, she gave 42 sovereign of jewels worth about 6 lakhs to the first accused, but subsequently, the first accused and the petitioner herein did not return the jewels. So, even as per the averments made in the complaint, the jewels were not handed over to the petitioner herein. On the contrary she has stated that she handed over the jewels only to her husband (accused No.1).

¶17

It is also to be pointed out that the respondent herein has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and the same has been numbered as CMP.No.5956 of 2010 and the learned Judicial Magistrate has disposed of the said application by the order dated 29.04.2016. In the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate has observed that the allegation that the respondent herein has handed over her 42 sovereign of jewels to her husband (accused No.1) cannot be accepted.

¶18

It appears that the respondent herein has not filed any appeal against the said order. Therefore, there is no prima facie case made out to proceed against the petitioner herein. The continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.498 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

¶19

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceeding against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.498 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram alone, is quashed. The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram has to proceed against the other accused persons uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

msrm

¶25

¶26

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

¶27

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶28

+1cc to M/s.V.J.Latha , Advocate SR.No. 73309

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.18206 of 2011
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011
ASK(14/12/2018)

¶30

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

V.Geethalakshmi v. P.Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Geethalakshmi v. P.Manjula

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. Rangan Vs State Rep.by

Karuppaboyan Vs Komarasami Gounder

S.Martin Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sathyapriya Vs the Inspector of Police

Munusamy (Deceased) Vs Annamalai

Kasiammal,W/O.Kullaiyan @ Vs 1.NAGAMMAL,W/O.VEDI Gounder