A transgender person can lodge valid complaints under Section 498-A IPC; vague allegations against in-laws are insufficient for prosecution.

COMMON O RDER:

1. These instant petitions under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , for short ' Cr.P.C ' have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C. No. 585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , for short ' IPC ' and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , for short 'DP Act'. Since all these criminal petitions are seeking to quash the proceedings out of the same C.C., they are decided together by this common order.

Background leading to the filing of these Petitions

2. The case of Respondent No.2/Complainant, in brief, is as follows:

a. Respondent No. 2 was originally male and, having transitioned to female, has become a woman. While residing in Chennai, Respondent No. 2 became acquainted with the Petitioner/Accused No. 1, and their acquaintance developed into a romantic relationship. Despite being aware that Respondent No. 2 is a transgender woman, Petitioner/Accused No. 1 continued the relationship with her. Upon learning about their affair, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 lodged complaints against her.

b. In January 2018, Petitioner/Accused No. 1 informed her that he had convinced his parents about their relationship, and consequently, they began living together. On 11.01.2019, Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner/Accused No. 1 executed a Memorandum of Understanding and subsequently got married on 21.01.2019 at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of the marriage, the parents of Respondent No. 2 gave an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 to Petitioner/Accused No. 1 as dowry, along with 25 sovereigns of gold, silver articles weighing 500 grams, and household items worth Rs. 2,00,000.

c. After the marriage, Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1 resided at her parents' house in Ongole. They occasionally visited the house of Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Chennai. Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 maintained cordial relations with Respondent No. 2 and frequently communicated with her over the phone. Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1 lived together until 11.03.2019. Thereafter, he went to his parents' house and did not return. When she tried to contact Accused No. 1, his phone was switched off. When Respondent No. 2 contacted Accused No. 3, she replied via message stating that they had gone to Mumbai and that she would ask Accused No. 1 to speak with Respondent No. 2.

d. On 13.03.2019, when Respondent No.2 went to the house of the Petitioners, she discovered that Accused No.1 was present there. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 attempted to send Accused No.1 out of the country. On 27.04.2019, Respondent No.2 received a threatening message from Accused No.1's phone, warning her to leave the place or face death. She also received vulgar messages. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 acted under the direction of Petitioner/Accused No.4. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, which was registered as Crime No.25 of 2019 at the Women Police Station, Ongole, for offences under Section 4 98-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961.

e.After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the Petitioners for the said offences, which was numbered as C.C. No. 585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole.

f. Seeking the quashment of the sai