Allowed

P.Dhanapal v. State by

Madras HC10 Apr 2023CRL OP/4954/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for dowry harassment. The court held that allegations were vague, lacked specific details of cruelty, involved irrelevant family members, and the parties had subsequently settled. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned final report and proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

P.Dhanapal Vs State by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4954 of 2021 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.3164 of 2021

¶8

Mr.P.Dhanapal

¶9

Mr.M.Palanisamy

¶10

Mrs.P.Jothi

¶11

Mrs.P.Saranya

¶12

Mr.P.Jayakumar

¶13

Mrs.P.Anitha

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No:03 of 2016)

¶17

Mrs.Kowsalya ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.110 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District and quash the same against the petitioners.

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/9

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaikumar For Respondents : For R1 : S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy A.Yogaraj

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.110 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District.

¶24

It is alleged in the final report that the petitioners had demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry from the second respondent / defacto complainant and since the second respondent / defacto complainant did not accede to the demand of the petitioners, she was subjected to cruelty and further she was also threatened that the petitioners will find a new bride for the first petitioner / A1.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶27

The second and third petitioners are the father and mother of the first

¶28

petitioner. The fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner / A1 and the fifth petitioner is the husband of the fourth petitioner. The sixth petitioner is the unmarried sister of the first petitioner / A1.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations in the final report are vague and made to wreak vengeance against the first petitioner with whom the second respondent / defacto complainant had matrimonial differences and had implicated the petitioner's family members who had nothing to do with the offences.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is nothing in the impugned final report to state as to when the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- was made by the petitioners and what is the nature of cruelty meted out to the second respondent / defacto complainant on account of the said dowry demand.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that subsequent to the filing of final report the parties have arrived at a compromise and this compromise was confirmed by the second respondent in her deposition dated 29.01.2018 given before the Subordinate Court, Sankari in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2016. In the said deposition, the second respondent had stated that the second respondent and the first petitioner had agreed to withdraw all the allegations and complaints against each other and she had received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as permanent alimony from the first petitioner.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent police would submit that there are allegations against the petitioners in the final report which has to be adjudicated only at the time of trial and hence prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

¶35

The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the deposition of the second respondent in the matrimonial proceedings should not be considered in the instant quash petition. In the present case, it has to be seen only if the allegations attract the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of materials

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶38

filed along with the impugned final report. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned final report discloses the offences and the proceedings under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C. cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the allegations are highly improbable. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26 .

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.

¶40

This Court, on the reading of the impugned final report finds that apart from the vague allegations that the first petitioner / A1 demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the second respondent, there is no other allegation against the petitioners 2 to 6. It is stated in the impugned final report that the petitioners 1 to 6 had jointly committed cruelty by defaming the second respondent and abusing her in filthy language. No details of the harassment has been given in the impugned final report.

¶41

This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly held that

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶44

when family members of the husband are implicated for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of I.P.C, the allegations must be specific and clear. It is seen that unmarried sister of the first petitioner is also made an accused. Husband of one of the sisters is also made an accused without any basis.

¶45

That apart, even as regards the first petitioner, it is not clearly stated as to when the alleged demand of dowry was made and what was the nature of cruelty on account of the said dowry demand. On an over all reading of the allegations in the final report it appears to be a case of matrimonial difference between the petitioners and the second respondent.

¶46

That apart, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the second respondent / defacto complainant, in her deposition before the Subordinate Court, Sankari in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2016 had stated that she and the first petitioner agreed to withdraw all the allegations and complaints made against each other. She had also accepted permanent alimony of Rs.1,50,000/- from the first petitioner.

¶47

The relevant portion of the second respondent, deposition dated

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9

¶49

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶50

29.01.2018 reads as follows:-

¶51

“ FwfF tprhuiz; :-

¶52

ehDk;. vd; fztUk; 2 tUlkhf gphpe;nj thH;fpwhk;/ jpUkzj;jpd;nghJ vdf;F nghlg;gl;l eiffs;. kw;Wk; tPl;L cgnahf bghUl;fis ehd; vjph;kDjhuhplkpUe;J ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F btspna itj;J bgw;W bfhz;nld;/ ehd; vd; fztu;. mtuJ bgw;nwhu; kw;Wk; FLk;g cWg;gpdu; cl;gl 5 ngu; kPJ gukj;jp midj;J kfspu; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; tujl;riz bfhLik Fwpj;J g[fhu; bfhLj;jpUe;njd; vd;why;. rupjhd;/ vd; fztu; vdJ rpj;jg;gh re;jpunrfud; kw;Wk; rpj;jp g{';bfho kPJ nkhro g[fhu; xd;wpid ehkf;fy; khtl;lk;. ntYhu;. fhty; epiyaj;jpy; bfhLj;jpUe;jhu; vd;why; rupjhd;/ ehDk;. vjpu;kDjhuUk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F btspna v';fSf;fpilapyhd gpur;rpid Fwpj;J rkurk; ngrpndhk; vd;why; rupjhd;/ mjd;go nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l ,U g[fhu;fisa[k; gu!;guk; eh';fspUtUk; nky; elj;jhky; tpl;L tpLtJ vd;W rk;kjpj;Js;nshk;/ vd; fztu; vdf;F xl;L bkhj;j thH;ehs; $Ptdhk;r bjhifahf U:/1,50,000/I t';fpahsu; fhnrhiy K:yk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F btspna itj;J eh';fspUtUk; nru;e;J thGk; tha;g;g[fs; fpilahJ.”

¶53

Therefore, for all the above reasons this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/9

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶56

The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the second respondent / defacto complainant in X vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26, is a case where there were allegations against the accused and the High Court held that the allegations were highly improbable. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings. However in the facts of the instant case, there are no allegations to attract the offence besides the fact that subsequently the parties have arrived at a settlement and had agreed to withdraw the allegations against each other.

¶57

For the above reasons the impugned final report is quashed.

¶58

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶59

10.04.2023

¶60

Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No rgm

¶61

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶62

rgm

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9

¶64

Crl.O.P.No.4954of 2021

¶65

¶66

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District.

¶67

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No:03 of 2016)

¶68

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104.

¶69

Crl.O.P.No.4954 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.3164 of 2021

¶70

10.04.2023

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/9

P.Dhanapal v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Dhanapal v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Ganesan Vs State Rep.by

N.Rajendran Vs R.Rajendran

N.Amsaveni Vs R.Loganathan

Sumathi Vs State Rep.by

K.C.Natarajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Prakash @ Settu Vs the Inspector of Police