The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious allegations made in the FIR necessitate the trial to proceed to its logical conclusion, and the court has the authority to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner while directing an expedited trial process.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.03 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.)

This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in Crime No.03 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the wife of A1-Arockia Rajesh Rodrigo. The marriage between them took place, on 05/06/2017 in Tuticorin. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 is the cousin sister of A1. During the marriage, as demanded by the parents of A1, she was provided with sufficient seervarisai and sridhana articles. At that time of marriage, it was stated that A1 is working as Officer in a ship. It is the second marriage for both of them. Right from the marriage day, she was ill-treated. He is also addicted to liquor. On 10th June 2017, she was assaulted by A1. But that was not condemned or questioned by A2 and A3. On 23/06/2017, the husband of A4 misbehaved with her throughout night and during the night, she was severely assaulted by A1. By pledging her jewels and drawing money from her bank account through ATM, they are lavishly spending the money. A4 also criminally intimidated her. When that was questioned on 20/07/2017, she was also assaulted in the presence of A2 and A3. After that, A1 by giving false of good life in future and received 30 sovereigns and pledged the same for discharging his debts. A4 also instigated A1 to harass and torture her. By torturing physically and mentally, on 30/07/2014 a letter was obtained by force, as if she is having illicit intimacy with another person. They also retained the pledged jewels which belongs to her. They have also dropped the money from her bank account leaving a small amount in her account. In December 2013 also, she was also severely assaulted and driven out of the house. Later, she was taken to the matrimonial home by her mother. Again, she was assaulted and admitted in the hospital. A2 and A3 demanded 50 sovereigns of jewels as additional dowry. On 30/12/2017, throughout night, she was abused, tortured, ill-treated and sexually assaulted also. On 31/12/2017, A4 came to the house and she was driven out of the house. With these allegations, the case was registered in Crime No.3 of 2019 for the offences under sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.

3. Seeking quashment of the same, A3, who is the sister of A1 has preferred this petition.

4. Heard both sides.

5. During the course of argument, it has been brought to the notice of this court that charge sheet in CC No.146 of 2002 has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy. Even though final report was filed, when the interim stay was in force, finding that it is not extended thereafter. So the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was permitted to argue the matter on merits.

6. Now it is clear that final report has been filed and taken cognizance and the trial has also commenced.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is noway connected between the matrimonial issue between the husband and wife and she was married long back and settled in life with her husband in Chennai and she has been wrongly roped in the above said issue. The complaint was not properly enquired as per the procedure. Only bald allegation has been made against the petitioner. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preethi Guptha Vs. State of Jarkhand (2010(7)SCS 667 and other judgments, on this point.

8. So the question, which arises for consideration is whether in the light of the factual circumstances, it is appropriate on the part of this court to quash the criminal proceedings.

9. But the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has filed a counter sta