The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the complaint must specifically implicate the accused in order to constitute an offence.

Accused 5 to 8 in C.C.No.588/2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, have filed this petition, to quash the proceedings against them.

2. The respondent herein as complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioners, arraying them as A5 to A8 along with A1 to A4, alleging that all the accused are liable to be punished under Section 498-A I.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, that all of them had jointly troubled the petitioner, inflicting cruelty, demanding dowry and for the non compliance, harassed her also. In this view, she brought all the accused, including the petitioners, to face the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The petitioners/accused 5 to 8 have filed this petition, seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them, since the allegations set out against them, in the complaint, even if it is taken on the face value, do not, in law, constitute or spell out any offence and therefore, compelling them to face the trial, is an onerous ordeal, that too, going from Trichy to Coimbatore, for each and every hearing. It is the further contention that the case against them is barred by territorial jurisdiction.

4. In order to appreciate the facts in issue, and to find out whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners, prima facie, would constitute an offence, even if the allegations are not rebutted, we have to see the relationship between the parties and their nativity and permanent abode.

5. The fact that the marriage between the complainant/respondent and the first accused was solemnised on 28.5.2000, is not in dispute. The second and third accused are the father and mother of the first accused. The 4th accused is the younger sister of the first accused. Even as seen from the cause title, they are all residing at Coonoor. The first petitioner/fifth accused, after the dispute arose between the spouses, is not living at Coimbatore. The 5th accused/first petitioner in this petition is the cousin brother of the first accused. The 6th accused is the brother of A3 or in other words, he is the maternal uncle of A1. The 7th accused/3rd petitioner is the wife of A6 and the aunt of the first accused. The 8th accused is the elder sister of A3 and aunt of A1.

5. Accused 5 to 8/the petitioners, are all residing admittedly at Trichy. The first petitioner is a practitioner in medicine. The second petitioner is an Executive Engineer working in P.W.D. It is not the case of the complainant/respondent, in the private complaint that the petitioners are all residing at Coonoor, along with other accused or they lived at least for sometime, when the incident said to have taken place. My effort to find out some allegations, regarding their coming to Connoor or Coimbatore, to make a demand for dowry or on the failure to pay the dowry amount, committed cruelty or harassment, ended in vain. Except the omnibus allegations, as if all the accused joined together and committed the offence, I am unable to find out any specific allegation, implicating the petitioners. If it is the case, that all the accused were living under the same roof, where the complainant/respondent was living, as the wife of the first accused, then even in the absence of specific allegations, against each accused, an inference could be drawn that they also might have committed the offence, since they were all living under the same roof, then seeking corroboration by way of oral or documentary evidence, as the case may be, at the time of the trial. Admittedly, the petitioners are not residing at Coonoor and therefore, to make out a case prima facie, against these petitioners, there should be some averments, in order to rope in them, within the four walls of 498-A I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no allegations are levelled in the complaint, even if any that is taken on the face value,