2010 Supreme(Mad) 41
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
D.V. Chandrasekar
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police Chennai & Others
O.P. No. 5887 of 2009
Decided On :01-03-2010
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT : S.4
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.498(a), S.506(i)
Headnote
Dowry Prohibition Act - Quashing of Proceedings - 498A, 406, 506(i) IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the allegations under sections 498A, 406, and 506(i) IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. It highlighted that the allegations of demand for money and abuse were made against the petitioner's wife and son, who were not present in India during the alleged incidents. The court found that no offense could be attributed to the petitioner and quashed the proceedings against him.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash proceedings against him in a case involving allegations of demand for money and abuse made by the de-facto complainant against the petitioner's wife and son, who were not present in India during the alleged incidents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no offense could be attributed to the petitioner and quashed the proceedings against him.
Issues: Allegations of demand for money and abuse against the petitioner's wife and son, who were not present in India during the alleged incidents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no offense could be attributed to the petitioner based on the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 251 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai as against the petitioner.
For the Petitioner:Lakshmipriya Associates Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, J.C. Durairaj, GA (Crl.side), R2, R3, M. Mohammed Shaji, Advocate.
The petitioner who is the first accused in C.C. No.251 of 2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai seeks to quash the proceedings as against him.
2. The marriage of the petitioners son and one Gayatri, daughter of the de-facto complainant took place on 08.12.2006. The marriage was not a happy one and several differences arose between the married couple. The de-facto complainant has preferred the complaint against the petitioner herein, his wife and son, the son having married the complainants daughter Gayatri. The complaint reads as follows :-
I am S.Raghuram, residing at 79, 3rd Street, Kamdar Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34,
1. My second daughter R.Gayathri, aged 23 years had an arranged marriage with Mr. Deepak Chandra Sekar, Son of B.V.Chandra Sekar on the 8th of December 2006. The marriage was celebrated with great pomp at Mayor Ramanathan Chettiar Centre Valliammal Hall, MRC Nagar, Santhome High Road, Madras-28. The marriage was attended by a number of well-known film personalities, politicians etc., as I am a reputed dance director in the film field.
2. At the time of marriage, I gave my daughter about 600 gms of gold jewels, diamonds and silver worth Rs.3,50,000/-. I presented my daughter with very valuable silk saris. Cash was also given. I presented saris, dhotis and other articles to the bridegrooms parents and other relatives. The marriage was a glittering affair and I spent lavishly as I wanted my daughter to have a happy married life.
3. At the time of marriage, my son-in-law Deepak Chandrasekar was employed as Systems Analyst with SISCO systems in San Jose, California, U.S.A. My daughter was also studying in IOWA USA where my elder daughter was living immediately after marriage, my daughter was taken to her in-laws house at B9, Luz Apartments, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. She was staying with them till she was taken to the U.S by her husband a week after the marriage. All her jewels, silver, valuables, clothes etc. were also taken to her in-laws house, as it is customary in our families.
4. My daughter informed me over the phone that she was having a happy married life with her husband in the U.S. She continued her studies in California after her return.
She still has three semesters to finish her course.
5. In May 2007 Mrs. Savithri Chandrasekar the mother of Deepak Chandrasekar went to USA to visit her son and stayed in his house. As she has got a taste of the wealth of our family. She wanted to extract a huge sum from us and started harassing and intimidating my daughter. She wanted to get Rs.1,50,00,000/-to cover the expenses of her daughter and son-in-law who are going to migrate to the U.S.A. She demanded the money from my daughter and asked her to get it from me immediately. She prevailed on my son-in-law also and he also started abusing harassing and ill-treating her. My daughter tells me that the situation became so bad that she was injured when her husband beat her up. She had to take medical treatment for the injury.
6. When I heard about this I was very shocked. Though I was worried about her safety, I thought that it was a one time incident and advised her to be patient. But the harassment and the demand for money continued and ultimately she was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 11.06.2007.
7. My daughter left all her belonging including her jewellery and personal effects in her matrimonial home had to go to my elder daughters house in Cincinatti Ohio. When she tried to contact her husband over phone, he strictly instructed her to desist from either contacting him or from returning to his house. My daughter informed me over the phone that as she has categorically refused to ask me for huge dowry amounts, her mother-in-law and husband became very angry and that at the instigation of her mother in law, he started behaving like a psychopath. He turned very violent and tried chocking her with a pillow. He had also thrown her puppy violently,