Matrimonial disputes should not be converted into criminal complaints without sufficient evidence. General allegations against family members are insufficient to constitute offenses under IPC sections pertaining to dowry harassment and intimidation.

ORDER :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the C.C.No.2069 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Madurai as against these petitioners.

2. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant/second respondent, namely, Vinothini, married one Thilippan Sundar, who is the first accused in this case. These petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant and they have arrayed as A2 to A6 in this case. The marriage between the defacto complainant and the first accused was solemnized on 06.09.2018 on Thiruvadanai Sivan Temple. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant presented 83 sovereigns of gold jewels to the defacto complainant and 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.2,00,000/- to the first accused and also presented Sridhana articles, worth about Rs.5,00,000/-. After the marriage, the defacto complainant resided along with the first accused as joint family. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant was conceived, the first accused and his parents obtained the jewels of the defacto complainant for keeping the same in their safety locker. Thereafter, the defacto complainant gave birth of female child. The first accused, alongwith his parents, insisted the defacto complainant to bring dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and also harassed her. The parents of the defacto complainant also paid the said Rs.2,00,000/-. Again, during Covid-19 pandemic period, the husband of the defacto complainant, along with his parents, demanded money and harassed her. The accused Nos.4 and 5/petitioners 3 and 4 also came to the house of the first accused and they also demanded Rs.7,00,000/- towards dowry and thereafter, when the defacto complainant was asking to return her jewels, the first accused told that the jewels were handed over to his parents and refused to return the jewels. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent and they registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2023, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, the first respondent conducted investigation and filed Final Report. The same was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate- VI, Madurai, in C.C.No.2069 of 2024 and the same is pending. Now, the in-laws of the defacto complainant filed this petition to quash the pending proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the petitioners 3 and 4 are the daughter and the daughter’s husband of the petitioners 1 and 2. The fifth respondent is also the daughter of the petitioners 1 and 2. While so, due to the family dispute between the defacto complainant and son of the petitioners 1 and 2, the defacto complainant/second respondent lodged a false complaint against these petitioners and based on the same, without any enquiry, the first respondent registered the case in Crime No.45 of 2023, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, the first respondent, without conducting proper investigation, filed Final Report and the Trial Court also, without any prima facie material, has taken cognizance. In fact, no any such occurrence was happened as alleged in the FIR and Final Report. Even as per the FIR and Final Report, there are only vague and bald allegations as against these petitioners.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that there are no ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) of IPC. These petitioners never demanded dowry and harassed the defacto complainant. There is a family dispute between the defacto co