COMMON ORDER

These criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.2307 of 2019 on XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George, Town, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.60 of 2018, as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.2017 at about

11.00 a.m., the petitioners went to the house of the second respondent and scolded him with filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences after receipt of summons from the III Additional Family Court, Chennai in the proceedings initiated by the defacto complainant for divorce.

3. All the petitioners appeared in person before this Court and submitted that no such occurrence happened on 27.12.2017. The summons from the Family Court in the divorce petition filed by the second respondent in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017 was prepared by the Family Court and was signed only on 27.12.2017. The same was sent by RPAD to the first accused. The first accused received summons through registered post only after two days on 29.12.2017 due to wrong residential address provided in the summons. The petitioners also produced acknowledgment, which reveals that she received summons in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017 on 29.12.2017. Further, they submitted that the entire complaint is nothing but counter blast to the complaint lodged by the first petitioner.

4. Per contra, Mr.G.Suresh, the learned counsel for the second respondent / defacto complainant submitted that on receipt of summons only, all the petitioners came to the place of residence of the second respondent and scolded with filthy language and they also threatened with dire consequences. In fact, the first petitioner tore his saree and threatened that she will foist a complaint as against his father. Further, he submitted that they lived for only three months and she had given mental and physical torture. Therefore, the second respondent filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai. He further submitted that there are specific allegations to attract the offence under Sections 294(b) & 506(i) of IPC.

5. Heard, the petitioners appearing in person, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent, and Mr.G.Suresh, the learned counsel for the second respondent.

6. It is seen that the first petitioner is the wife of the second respondent herein. They got married and thereafter due to dowry demand, she was driven out from the matrimonial home. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that on the complaint lodged by the first petitioner, all the sreedhana articles which were presented during the marriage were returned to the first petitioner and the same was also duly acknowledged by her. In fact, she received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to file divorce petition on the ground of mutual consent. On receipt of the entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and sreedhana articles which were presented during the marriage, she refused to agree for mutual consent and the second respondent was constrained to file divorce petition on the point of cruelty.

7. It is also seen that due to misunderstanding, they got separated.

There was negotiation between them. Both agreed for divorce on mutual consent. The second respondent had taken DD for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and filed petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMOP.No.4979 of 2018. However, she did not agree for mutual consent and returned the DD which was taken for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the second respondent herein. Therefore, the divorce petition filed on the ground of mutual consent was dismissed. Thereafter, the second respondent filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty in HMOP.No.4561 of 2017.

8. On perusal of the records revealed that in the said case, summons was issued to the first petitioner and the