Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K.B.K. Vasuki, J.
M. Rajalakshmi and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 75, 21245 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2013 and 1 of 2014
Decided On: 04.09.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: C. Arun Kumar
For Respondents/Defendant: C. Emalias, A.P.P. and Ram & Ram
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 161 – Indian Penal Code - Sections498a, 406 and 420 - Likely to result in acquittal – Demand of dowry Quash the proceedings – Investigation - Main allegations raised against husband and father-in-law both in complaint as well as in charge sheet are that the father-in-law demanded more amount by way of dowry and the husband had been, at the instance of the father-in-law, compelling the second respondent to hand over her entire salary and the husband both at abroad and during her visit at Chennai used to abuse her and beat her and at the instance of parents-in-law and sister-in-law, compelled to resign her job and the parents-in-law and sister-in-law encouraged A1-husband in beating his wife and A1 husband made her to part with and thereafter, transferred it to his father’s account to purchase a residential flat at Chennai and the same was later on transferred to the name of his mother etc – Held, As far as mother-in-law and sister-in-law are concerned, they come forward with the present petitions for of proceedings mainly on the ground that allegations raised against them in complaint and charge sheet and in Section 161 statement of witnesses are bald, vague, without any material particulars and belated as such same are not sufficient enough to prima face make out any offence against them - It is further contended that the present complaint is a counter blast against the decree obtained by the husband against the wife - There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498A of IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives - Fact that Section 498A is a cognizable and non-boilable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives - Simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed ridden grand-fathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decade are arrested. "Crime in India Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest persons all over India during for offence under section 498A of IPC more than -- Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision were women which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share out of total persons arrested under crimes committed under Indian Penal Code - It accounts for of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt - Rate of charge sheeting in cases under section 498A IPC is as high while conviction rate is only which is lowest across all heads - As many cases are pending trial of which on current estimate are likely to result in acquittal - Though in the observation of Supreme Court, it is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the wife was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation, however, on facts, the last act of cruelty was committed against the wife on on which date, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and the period of limitation commenced for offences under sections 406and 498A - Petition allowed
K.B.K. Vasuki, J.
1. Both the Criminal Original Petitions are filed by A3 and A4 to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 3792/2012 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The case in CC. 3792/2012 arising out of the complaint given by the second respondent is taken cognizance against the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC. The petitioners in both the Crl. OPs are mother-in-law/A3 and sister-in law/A4 of the second respondent. A1 by name Saravanan and the second respondent Dr. Pinki Vedavanam, who were doctors by profession, got married in 2003 and settled at United Kingdom and the second respondent gave birth to a female child in 2004. Due to difference and dispute arose between the husband and wife, A1 Saravanan approached the Foreign Court for divorce and the marriage was, by order dated 7.1.2010 resolved on the ground that the marriage was broken down irretrievably. Thereafter, the second respondent returned to India during January 2011. The complaint, arising out of which is the present two Crl. OPs was preferred on 22.11.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar, Chennai by the second respondent and the same was registered on 18.12.2012 as Cr. No. 11 of 2011 on the file of All Women Police Station, Chennai, for the offences under sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420, 323 r/w 34 IPC and the same was taken cognizance for the offences under sections498A, 406 and 420 IPC in CC. No. 3792/2012.
2. The main allegations raised against A1-husband and A2 father-in-law both in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are that the father-in-law demanded more amount by way of dowry and the husband had been, at the instance of the father-in-law, compelling the second respondent to hand over her entire salary and the husband both at abroad and during her visit at Chennai, used to abuse her and beat her and at the instance of the parents-in-law and sister-in-law, compelled to resign her job and the parents-in-law and sister-in-law encouraged A1-husband in beating his wife and A1 husband made her to part with Rs. 24 lakhs and thereafter, transferred it to his father's account to purchase a residential flat at Nolambur, Chennai and the same was later on transferred to the name of his mother etc.
3. As far as the mother-in-law and sister-in-law are concerned, they come forward with the present petitions for quashment of the proceedings mainly on the ground that the allegations raised against them in the complaint and charge sheet and in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses are bald, vague, without any material particulars and belated, as such, the same are not sufficient enough to prima face make out any offence against them. It is further contended that the present complaint is a counter blast against the decree obtained by the husband against the wife.
4. Whereas, the relief is seriously opposed by the first respondent/IO and the second respondent/de facto complainant on the basis of the allegations raised in the complaint, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses and the charge sheet.
5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.
6. As already stated above, the case is taken cognizance against the petitioners and others for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC. The perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the statement of the witnesses relied on by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences as mentioned above are that the second respondent/de facto complainant, her parents, her paternal uncle and IO. The facts made available herein would reveal that the present case is not the only case between the parties. The husband already initiated divorce proceedings before the concerned court at UK and obtained an order of divorce as early as on 7.1.2010. The de facto complainant/wife returned to India dur
