ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.110 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent was performed on 07.06.2010. Due to their wedlock, second respondent gave birth to a male child. Thereafter, due to misunderstanding, they got separated. She also alleged that, she was not provided with food and essential requirements. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the Lok Adalat. After negotiation, she was directed to live with her husband and the family members are advised to take care of the victim. Even then, they had failed to take care of the second respondent and as such, they got separated. Thereafter, first petitioner filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Thereafter, second respondent lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 13.04.2015 and the same was registered for the offence under Section 498 of IPC. After completion of investigation, first respondent filed final report for the offence under Section 498 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.110 of 2015. There are totally five accused. Petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A5. First Petition is the husband of the second respondent and others are in-laws.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though there are specific allegations as against the first petitioner, no allegations were not made as against the other petitioners namely A2 to A5. Infact, A4 and A5 are living separately and no way connected with A1 to A3. He further submitted that, the present complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner. That apart, first respondent registered FIR without even conducting any enquiry. Petitioner was not served with any notice immediately after receipt of the complaint. Thereafter, first petitioner filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and it was duly contested by the second respondent. After considering the evidence on record, divorce petition was allowed on the ground of desertion and the marriage between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent was dissolved. Thereafter, 2nd respondent had not filed appeal against the order of divorce. He further submitted that, only on her insistence, first petitioner had set up separate residence. Thereafter, first petitioner transferred to Banglore and defacto complainant was taken to Banglore. They lived separately and therefore, other petitioners are not living with the first petitioner.

4. Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, there are specific allegations as against all the accused persons to attract the offence under Section 498 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998. On 07.06.2010, 2nd respondent got married to the petitioner. Due to their wedlock, 2nd respondent gave birth to a male child. During their marriage, petitioner was provided with 51 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry. On 20.06.2010, 1st petitioner had taken the 2nd respondent to Banglore. They used to visit her in-law's house, who are the 4th & 5th petitioners herein. Thereafter, she got pregnant. Petitioners without even informing her parents, conducted baby shower function to her. That apart, they had not invited any of the family members of the second respondent. She delivered a female child and thereafter, she was not provided with proper meal and basic amenities. Therefore, she was not able to feed her child. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that, there was harassment by the petitioners as against the second respondent and there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibitio