The judgment establishes the principle that a complaint containing false allegations, fabricated documents, and deliberate suppression of facts amounts to an abuse of process of Court and warrants the quashing of criminal proceedings.

1. The petitioners 1 to 5 have been arraigned as A1 to A5 in the Criminal case instituted on a private complaint by the respondent on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore in C.C.No.204 of 2006. Fifth Petitioner Kalpana (A5) is the wife of the respondent Dr.V.D.Karthikeyan /the complainant. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents and the petitioners 3 and 4 are respectively brother and sister of the fifth petitioner / fifth accused. They have approached this Court by way of the present Crl.O.P.No.2358 of 2007 for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore in C.C.No.204 of 2006 on the private complaint of the respondent herein presented under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging commission of offences by the petitioners 1 to 5 punishable under Sections 406, 506(ii) and 420 IPC.

2. In the said complaint, the respondent has made the following allegations:-

i) The respondent (complainant) is a doctor by profession, specialised in Ophthalmology. He never had an intention to go anywhere out of India seeking employment or settling down in a foreign country. Only in 2004, he decided to marry and browsed the internet to find prospective brides. While doing so, he came across the resume of the fifth petitioner and contacted her parents, brother and sister viz., the petitioners 1 to 4 herein. The negotiations for the marriage was held in absentia of the fifth petitioner, who was then employed in USA and the respondent had the opportunity of seeing her only in the photograph. After the marriage proposal was finalised and the date was fixed, the fifth petitioner came down to India and their marriage was solemnized on 31.01.2005 at Tirupathi according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was subsequently registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, Chennai on 18.02.2005.

ii) The fifth petitioner and the respondent had their marital life together at Vellore till 27.02.2005, when she went back to USA assuring the respondent that she would wind up her work and return to India to lead a happy marital life with the respondent. Before the marriage, the respondent made it clear that he did not have any idea of going to USA and he wanted his wife to wind up her job in USA and return back to Tamil Nadu to lead the life with the respondent and the said condition was accepted by the petitioners.

But soon after the marriage date was finalized, the petitioners 1 to 4 demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as the fifth petitioner needed the money for her return. Subsequent to her departure to USA, she was in touch with the respondent over phone and informed him that her employer in USA was reluctant to accept her resignation and hence, she needed another sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to process her quick return and asked the respondent to pay the said amount to her parents. Accordingly, in the month of June 2005, the respondent paid the above said amount to the petitioners 1 to 4, who received it on the pretext that they would sent it to the fifth petitioner. Again the petitioners 1 to 4 wanted the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-for their urgent necessities, as they were unable to meet their expenses at Chennai due to clogging of funds. Believing the said version, in September 2005, the respondent paid the said sum also to the petitioners 1 to 4. In all, the respondent has parted with a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-to the petitioners. Only thereafter, the respondent was able to see the real colour of the petitioners. The petitioners made a false representation, as if the fifth petitioner needed the money for winding up her job in USA to come down to India and made the respondent to part with a huge amount of Rs.17,00,000/-without having any intention to do so.

iii) In fact, within 5 months from the date of marriage, the fifth petitioner gave birth to a male child in USA in the month of June 2005. Even the birth of the child was not informed to the respondent and only