The timing of a complaint in relation to other legal proceedings, as well as the age and residence of the accused, can be considered in determining the validity of the complaint and the quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the entire records connected with the case in Crime No.29 of 2020 registered on the file of the respondent no.1 and quash the same as illegal in so far as it related to the petitioners.)

1. This petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.29 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that A1 by name Karumalaidurai and the defacto complainant got married on 23.06.2016 at Paramakudi. At the time of marriage, 66 sovereigns of gold jewel, household articles worth about Rs.1,00,000/- were given to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant and the petitioners 2 and 3 lived together as a joint family. A1 harassed the second respondent demanding dowry. A1 to A3 demanded the defacto complainant to bring 50 sovereign of gold jewels and 5 cents of land as additional dowry in the month of August 2016. A1 went to Singapore during the month of December 2016. The second respondent went to Singapore and since she was pregnant, she returned back to her in laws house. On 23.09.2017, the petitioners 3 and 4 came to the house of the defacto complainant and abused the second respondent and attacked her and sent her to her parent’s house. After two days, she was blessed with a female child. The complaint of the second respondent in FIR in Crime No.29 of 2020 was registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners did not commit any offence as mentioned in the FIR. They did not demand any dowry or additional dowry. At the time of marriage, A1 gave 10 ½ sovereign of gold thalli chain to the second respondent and after two months, he went to Singapore. It was the second respondent, who refused to live with A1 and she returned back to India. She failed to do the duty of the wife. It was the second respondent, who took away Rs.1,20,000/- from the ATM card of A1 and she gave the amount to her father without informing A1.

4. On 02.09.2017, the second respondent and her father came to the house of the first petitioner and they attacked the second petitioner and threatened her to vacate the house. They chased the second petitioner out of the house. The second petitioner lodged a complaint before the Emaneshwaram Police Station and on enquiry, the second respondent clearly gave a statement that she is not willing to live with her husband. She went to her parents’ house. The efforts taken by A1 for reunion ended in vain. A female child was born on 25.09.2017 but the same was not informed to the family members of the petitioners or A1. On knowing the birth of the granddaughter, the petitioners went to the hospital but the second respondent did not allow them to see their granddaughter. Even now the petitioners are taking effective steps for reunion.

5. Since the second respondent was not willing to lead a matrimonial live with A1, A1 decided to file a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.83 of 2019 before the Sub Court, Paramakudi on 31.07.2019. On receiving the summon from the Court, the second respondent filed a transfer petition in Tr.C.M.P.No. 844 of 2019 on 22.01.2020 and the case was transferred to the IVth Additional Family Court, Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioners came to understand that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent and a FIR was registered after a lapse of three years. The second respondent has lodged this complaint with a bad intention after a lapse of 16 months, after the filing of the divorce petition and the FIR is to be quashed.

6. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the second respondent went out of the matrimonial house, out of her own decision and after a lapse of three years, she has lodged the present complaint. The petitioners 1 and 2 are senior ci