1. Both these quash petitions have been filed by the Petitioners who are arrayed as Respondents 4 and 5 in C.C.No.6578 of 2013, pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, filed by the second respondent herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Since both these petitions are filed against the same C.C.No.6578 of 2013, they are taken up together and common order is passed.

2. The complaint had been filed against seven persons and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10011 of 2014 was impleaded as 4th respondent and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7187 of 2014 was impleaded as 5th respondent in C.C.No.6578 of 2013. The persons, who are impleaded as respondents by the 2nd respondent/ complainant are her mother-in-law S.Kasthuri, brothers-in-law T.C.Badrinath and T.C.Ravindranath, younger brother of the father-in-law of the 2nd respondent/complainant T.K.Srinivasan, sister-in-law T.K.S.Bharathi, elder brother of the father-in-law T.K.Krishnan and the younger brother of the father-in-law of the 2nd respondent/complainant T.K.Suriaprakash.

3. The averments in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent / complainant is that she is an Advocate and got married to one Harinath, son of S.Kasthuri on 24.08.2003 and after marriage, the 2nd respondent/complainant settled at the house of her husband, who was also an Advocate and out of the wedlock, a male child was born to them. Her father-in-law, namely, Late.K.Chandran was an Advocate and also a Notary Public and her mother-in-law was an Administrator of a Driving School known as “Om Driving School”. Her husband was having two brothers and her father-in-law was having six brothers and out of them, T.K.Krishnan, T.K.Srinivasan and T.K.Suriaprakash were in touch with her father-in-law. Her brother-in-law, namely, Badrinath got married with one Dhanalakshmi during 2006 and thereafter, since he raised a dispute with regard to partition of the joint family property her father-in-law died on 04.07.2007 after suffering a heart attack. Thereafter, her another brother-in-law, namely, Ravindranath got married with one Anitha. The further averment according to the 2nd respondent/complainant is that her mother-in-law had tortured her frequently by demanding money from her with an instruction not to inform the same to her husband. But, at one stage of the issue, the 2nd respondent/complainant had informed the same to her husband and her husband had also advised his mother not to ask money from the 2nd respondent/complainant. On 24.09.2007, her mother-in-law had tortured her and obtained a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- from her for purchase of a Car for her brother-in-law, namely, Badrinath. Further, they gave tortures to her by cutting her dress and adding more salt in the food etc., and therefore, she got mental agony. In such circumstances, Dhanalakshmi wife of her brother-in-law Badrinath lodged a complaint in Crime No.2 of 2008, with regard to dowry harassment, as against the 2nd respondent/complainant, her husband and mother-in-law and also against her other relatives. In the complaint she had not made any allegation as against her husband Badrinath and the said case is pending on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, as C.C.No.3091 of 2009. Further, according to the 2nd respondent/complainant, the brothers of her father-in-law, namely, T.K.Srinivasan (Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10011 of 2014), T.K.Krishnan, T.K.Suriaprakash and her brother-in-law, namely, T.C.Badrinath are the prosecution witnesses and they threatened the 2nd respondent/complainant as well as her husband by demanding ten lakhs rupees for not deposing evidence as against them in the said case. Subsequently, during January, 2011, the 2nd respondent/complainant gave a sum of Rs.30,000/- to her mother-in-law to settle the debts availed by her from the third parties. Subsequently, her mother-in-law went to the native village of her husband, namely, Thirukanda