The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement that a person charged under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act must be a party to the marriage, and the implications of this requirement on the applicability of the charge.

1. The following are the allegations contained in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the case:-

The petitioner is sister's husband of first accused who is husband of defacto complainant. The marriage of the first accused with the defacto complainant took place in the year 2000. He was not at all a member in the family of the 1st accused at the time of marriage. There would be no possibility of he being a party in the alleged dowry harassment/demand. In the complaint given to the police the defacto complainant it is stated that "TAMIL" Even if it is admitted for argument sake, it would not form a part to constitute an offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. or Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The defacto complainant only with an intention of harassing the petitioner has added his name in the complaint. The act of complainant is against the well laid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments that adding distance relatives are "damage more than repair" or remedy more than peril. Hence the petitioner may be discharged from the case.

2. In the counter filed by the respondent it is averred as follows:

2. (a) The petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. The above petition is filed to drag on the case and to gain time. Even though the petitioner is not the relative of 1st accused at the time of marriage with the defacto complainant he is the main relative after the marriage of the 1st accused with the defacto complainant and played a major role in harassing the defacto complainant. The materials collected during the investigation and produced before the Court disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation clearly establishes the act of the petitioner in committing the offence charged against him and other accused. It is well settled law that at the time of framing charges court need not go deep into the merits of the case and court has to frame charges if prima facie case is made out if unrebutted would warrant a conviction. Hence, the Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition for discharge.

3. After hearing both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, has dismissed the petition by observing that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and since the petition is filed at the stage of framing charges. Aggrieved at the order of the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner is before the Court.

4. Point for consideration:

Whether sufficient prima facie materials are available to frame charges against the petitioner/accused5?

Point:

5. Mr. R.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that inasmuch as the petitioner was not a member of accused family at the time of marriage the offence under Dowry Prohibition Act would not attract, that even the allegations contained in the FIR could not constitute any crime against this petitioner, that it is well settled principle that when there is no material at all on the basis of which it could be said that there is prima facie case against the accused and the charges against him appear to be groundless, there could be no charges, that the allegations contained in the complaint are false, that according to the statutory requirement of Section 2 and 4 of the D.P. Act, to bring a person under Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to atleast state that the said person was a party to the marriage which began the cause of action for the alleged crime, but when the petitioner was not a party to the marriage the petitioner cannot be saddled with the charge of Section 4 of D.P. Act and that no sufficient material is available to get the accused in this case, that the trial Court has not approached any of the issues in the pragmatic settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court and in the lines of Criminal Procedure Code but dismissed by stating sim