IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarified the interpretation of the term 'relative of the husband' under Section 498 A of I.P.C. and discussed the bar provided under Section 198 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the offense under Section 494 of I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore and quash the charge sheet in the same as far as the petitioner is concerned.)

1. This petition has been filed by A3 seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 was married to the defacto complainant in the year 2009. There was a matrimonial dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant and it was alleged that A1 and A2 who is the father of A1 were demanding for dowry and were causing cruelty to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, A1 and defacto complainant went to Dubai and were living there for some time. However, there was again a dispute and the defacto complainant was sent back to India. At the time when she returned back to India, she was pregnant and she delivered a girl child on 11.09.2011.

3. The defacto complainant later came to know that A1 is living with the petitioner (A3) after marrying her in the year 2017 and there was also a child born to the petitioner. The defacto complainant not being able to take the cruelty any longer, gave a complaint to the first respondent which resulted in the registration of an F.I.R. in Crime No.20 of 2018. The husband, his father and the petitioner were added as accused. On completion of investigation, final report has been filed before the Court below and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.40 of 2020. In so far as the petitioner (A3) is concerned, the Court below has taken cognizance for offence under Section 494 read with 109 of I.P.C. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

4. Earlier, A1 and A2 approached this Court and filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.1340 of 2021. This Court by an order dated 19.10.2023 allowed the petition in so far as A2 is concerned and quashed the proceedings. However, the petition was dismissed in so far as A1 is concerned.

5. The petitioner who was present in person argued the case in person. She submitted that she never had any contact with A1 and that she has been unnecessarily roped in this case and that she is a single parent who is taking care of the child and she is undergoing the agony of facing the criminal prosecution before the Court below for the last four years. The petitioner further submitted that all the documents that are available with her shows that only the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as the parent of the child and the name of A1 has not been mentioned anywhere. Therefore, whatever materials are now being shown before the Court are fabricated documents. She further submitted that she did not want the child to undergo a DNA test since it will directly infringe the privacy of the child and therefore the same cannot be put against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that none of the offences are made out against her and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court which requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the final report has been filed against the petitioner only for offence under Section 494 read with 109 of I.P.C. and particularly the statements recorded from L.W.4 to L.W.8 clearly shows that the petitioner was living with A1 and the child was born to her only through A1. Therefore, it was contended that the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. is prima facie made out. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that if the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. is tried along with the other offence under Section 498 A, there is no need to resort to the private complaint procedure as contemplated under Section 198 of Cr.P.C. and bo