ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the Final Report in C.C.No.67 of

2018 pending trial on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, in so far as the petitioner concerned.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent got married to the first accused on 14.11.1999 . Due to their wedlock, second respondent gave birth to two children. Immediately after 10 days from the date of marriage, she was harassed by her husband under the influence of alcohol. He also demanded huge dowry and it was supported by his mother namely C.Sarasammal/ petitioner/second accused and thereafter, she was driven out from the matrimonial house and therefore, she had stayed in her parent's house. When she returned to the matrimonial house, she found that A1 is living with A3. Not only that, he had also demanded dowry. Hence, the complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.47 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C. After conclusion of the investigation, the first respondent filed the Final Report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court. There are totally three accused and the petitioner is arrayed as second accused.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the statement recorded from the witnesses it revealed that, petitioner supported the first accused in refusing the defacto complainant to reside in her matrimonial house. That apart, petitioner is living separately and not with the first accused. Further, the marriage was solemnized on 14.11.1999. However, in the year 2004 itself, second respondent deserted the first accused and had gone to her parent's house. In the year 2016, she visited the first accused’s house and found that the first accused is living with the third accused. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she is not living with the first accused. Therefore, no allegation is made out as against the petitioner, since she is living separately and not with the first accused. Even then, the first respondent charged the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C. There is absolutely no harassment by the petitioner in order to attract the offences under section

498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C.

4. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, as follows:

“the allegations made against the husband, the in-laws, husband's brother and sister were bald allegations and appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the in-laws of the complainant. It was held that with regard to allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Accordingly, the proceedings against them were quashed. ”

5. The above judgment is squarely applicable to this case on hand.

Further, the petitioner is the mother-in-law and she has been charged for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. Mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specifically if it happens soon after the wedding. Therefore, the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioner.

6. Inso