The court emphasized the need for evidence in dowry harassment cases and the requirement for trial in cases with pending litigations.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the entire records relating to the impugned chargesheet in C.C.No.548 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, (Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai and to quash the same.)

Common Order:

1. These petitions are filed to quash the chargesheet in C.C.No.548 of 2020, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, (Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is the father in law, the third petitioner is the mother in law, the fourth petitioner is the sister of the mother in law, the fifth petitioner is the sister in law, the sixth petitioner is the cousin brother of the first petitioner. The seventh petitioner is the elder brother of the second petitioner. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1763 of 2021 is the cousin brother of the first petitioner. The petitioners treated the defacto complainant with cruelty and they demanded more dowry and they driven out the defacto complainant from the matrimonial home. A case in Crime No.19 of 2019 under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act was registered against the petitioners. Subsequently, after investigation, the final report was filed altering the offences under Sections 498(A), 403 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act r/w. 34 of IPC. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.548 of 2020 on the file Additional Mahila Court(Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai.

3. The case of the petitioners is that at the time of marriage, 10 soverigns of gold jewel was given to the wife. The defacto complainant has already taken back the household articles. The first petitioner is working in Bangalore in IT field and the second petitioner is doing catering work in Madurai. The petitioners 3 to 5 are house wives. The sixth petitioner is a business man and the seventh petitioner is a retired professor. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 1763 of 2021 is working in a private company. The first petitioner and the second respondent were having friendship from the college days and they continued their friendship at Bangalore while they were working in the IT field. Both the families consent for their marriage and the marriage was solemnized on 30.06.2017. After marriage, they lived at Bangalore. The petitioners/Accused 2 to 8 were residing in Madurai. There was no harassment or ill treatment at the influence of the petitioners/Accused 2 to 8. The first petitioner filed divorce application in H.M.O.P.No.601 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. Another petition in H.M.O.P.No.575 of 2020 for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before same Court. The second respondent filed a case in M.C.No.137 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. The second respondent on the ill advice of her family members and her colleagues lodged a criminal complaint against the husband and his family members. The Social Welfare Officer conducted an enquiry and filed a report on 23.11.2019 stating that there was no dowry harassment. In fact the petitioners/Accused 2 to 8 tried to re unite the husband and wife and the case is liable to be quashed.

4. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that there is no ingredients for dowry harassment. The entire case was based on dowry harassment. But the District Social Welfare Officer, Madurai has given a statement that there was no dowry harassment. The first respondent Police did not conduct any independent investigation. The petitioners 2, 3 and 8 are aged about 63, 64 and 67 respectively. The petitioners/Accused 2 to 8 were no way connected with the matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent.

5. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that even before the filing of the divorc