Sudhakar Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2026)

Sudhakar Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur quashed; Criminal Original Petition allowed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions (Crl.M.P.Nos.19034 of 2022 & 1138 of 2023) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2022 (arising from FIR Crime No.10 of 2021, for offences under Sections 498A and 506(i) of IPC) against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of process of law. +2 more

Court's answer

Applying this Court's judgment in Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police (Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014), which is squarely applicable, the entire proceedings cannot be sustained against the petitioner and amount to clear abuse of process of law.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the second respondent, all the allegations are trivial in nature, bald and vague, with no specific allegation and without mentioning any date or time of the alleged occurrence.

Key takeaways

Questioning the second respondent about her relationship with other persons by her husband does not amount to cruelty, and therefore the offence under Section 498A is not at all attracted against the petitioner.ratio¶44
When the second respondent was questioned by the petitioner about her illegal intimacy with another person, it would not amount to interference with her personal liberty, and the said allegation cannot be accepted.ratio¶37
Even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and had no effect on the complainant; hence the ingredients of the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC are not made out.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2022 (Judicial Magistrate, Harur) for offences under Sections 498A and 506(i) IPC, arising out of FIR Crime No.10 of 2021 registered by the All Women Police Station, Harur on the complaint of the wife, quashed. Husband was the sole accused. Perusal of the wife's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement showed the allegations to be trivial, bald and vague, without any date or time of the alleged occurrence; questioning the wife about her alleged intimacy/relationship with other persons, by the husband, does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC nor interference with her personal liberty. As regards Section 506(i) IPC, even on the prosecution's own showing the alleged threats were empty threats with no effect on the complainant, so the required ingredients (real threat and intention to cause alarm) were absent. Following the Division-referenced precedent of the same Court in Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014, held squarely applicable, continuance of the proceedings was clear abuse of process of law; proceedings quashed, petition allowed, connected miscellaneous petitions closed (G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., order dated 02.03.2026).

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19034 of 2022 & 1138 of 2023

Sudhakar

S/o. Ponnusamy, D.No.1/74, Kotrapatti Village, Shanthapatti Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Inspector Of Police All Women Police Station, Harur, Dharmapuri District.

Crime No. 10 / 2021.

Abinaya W/o. Sudhakar, D/o. Veeramani, D.No.1/335, Moppiripatti Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating C.C.No.63 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Pradeep

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mrs.R.Angalaparameswari for R2

Page 1 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.63

of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 506(i), 498A of IPC as against this petitioner.

The petitioner got married to the second respondent on 21.06.2012 and gave birth to a male child. While being so, they have misunderstanding between them due to which, the second respondent lodged complaint alleging that the petitioner verbally abused the defacto complainant and accusation against her chastity with relatives and refused to give her dresses and son’s dresses. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2021 and after completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.63 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 506(i) & 498A of IPC, by the trial Court. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no

offence is made out as against the petitioner as per the allegation levelled as Page 2 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022 against him. Due to their wed lock, they have birth to a male child on 23.04.2013. During their marriage, the parents of the second respondent did

not give any sridhana articles. In fact, the petitioner is a software engineer and earning decent salary from the reputed multinational company at Bangalore. As a husband, he discharged his marital obligations and also taking care of her in all needs. While being so, the second respondent without going to any job, addicted with alcohol. She always used to speak with her boy friends and uploaded the videos on instagram. She had illicit relationship with one Nivek Nishanth. When it was came to the knowledge, the petitioner questioned the same. Therefore, immediately the second respondent in order to escape from the clutches of law lodged the complaint. Even as per the allegation levelled in the charge sheet, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioner. That apart, the second respondent also filed domestic violence complaint and it is also pending. She also filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.NO.26 of 2021 and it is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Harur.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent has friends only and the petitioner wrongly understood that she is having illicit relationship with them. He wrongly suspected her fertility and without any reasons quarrelled with the Page 3 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022 second respondent. Further, the petitioner used the password of the second respondent cell phone and without her permission he had taken the

photographs from her cell phone. It was amount to interference with the personal liability of the second respondent. Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the charge under Sections 498A and 506(i) of IPC and hence she prayed to dismiss the quash petition.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that after completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506(i) of IPC. He further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only during the trial.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

the materials placed before this Court.

The petitioner is a sole accused and he is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506(i) of IPC. On perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., from the second respondent, it is seen that all the allegations are trivial in nature and no serious allegations Page 4 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022 are made out as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 498A and 506(i) of IPC. All the allegations are bald and vague and no specific allegation that too without mentioning any date or time of the alleged occurrence. Further she is also having illegal intimacy with another person and when it was questioned, it would not amount to interference with her personal liberty. It is unfortunate to state that when the second respondent is having illegal intimacy with another person and when the same was questioned by the petitioner, it would not amount to interference of her personal liberty and the said allegation cannot be accepted. The relevant portion of her statement is as follows :-

“//////mjd; gpwF 26/02/2021 tPl;Lf;F te;J vd;dplk; gpur;rpid bra;J vd; bry;nghd; kw;Wk; fojj;ija[k; vLj;Jf; bfhz;L vd; jhj;jh fhl;lhspft[z;lu; vd;gtuplk; bfhLj;J ehd; ntW igadplk; ngRtjhf Twpa[k; 02/03/2021k; njjp vd; mg;ghtpw;F SMS mDg;gp vd;id kpul;odhu;/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf 12/04/2021k; njjp kPz;Lk; fhty; epiyak; brd;W vd; fztu; kPJ eltof;if vLf;f nfl;nld;/ vd; fztUf;F nghd; bra;J ngrpdhu;fs;/ mth; btspapy; ,Ug;gjhf brhd;dhu;/ gpwF vd; ,uz;L bry;nghd;fspy; cs;s gh!;ntL vz;iz jpUo vdJ jdpg;gl;l tprpa';fisa[k;. Page 5 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022 fojj;ija[k; itj;J vd;id nftyg;gLj;jp

kpul;oajhy; jUkg[up khtl;l fz;fhzpg;ghsu; mtu;fSf;F kD mDg;gpndd;//////”

It clearly shows that the second respondent is having relationship with other persons and it was questioned by the petitioner who is being the husband of the second respondent. Therefore it would not amount to cruelty and the offence under Section 498A is not at all attracted as against the petitioner.

Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.

In this regard, It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:-

Page 6 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022 “7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.”

The above judgment squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, the

entire proceedings cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.

Page 7 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022

Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2022, on the file of

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur , is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petitions stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

02.03.2026

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order

rts

Page 8 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Harur

Page 9 of 10

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

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

rts

Crl.O.P.No.31086 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19034 of 2022 & 1138 of 2023

02.03.2026

Page 10 of 10

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