COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.5 of 2021 dated 26.03.2021, registered by the first respondent for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 342, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant viz., the second respondent herein is the wife of the first accused and the petitioners are the in-laws of the second respondent. The first accused and the second respondent got married on 28.08.2020 and during their marriage, the parents of the second respondent presented gold jewels and other house hold articles. Even thereafter the first accused demanded huge dowry and insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they scolded the second respondent with filthy language and abused her. It is also alleged that from the date of marriage, the first accused on the instructions of the other accused harassed the defacto complainant by physically and mentally. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the above case as against the petitioners and others.

3. Heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police and Mr.Inbanathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in all the petitions.

4. It is seen from the records that there are totally four accused, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A4 in all the petitions. The second and third accused are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and the fourth accused is the sister-in-law. On perusal of the entire FIR, there is no specific allegation as against the petitioners herein and the entire allegations are made only as against the first accused viz., the husband of the second respondent.

5. In fact, the fourth accused viz., the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20093 of 2021 is a resident of Australia with her husband and children. Her last visit to India was in the year 2018. On 28.08.2020, she was not even attended the marriage between the first accused and the second respondent herein. It is also evidence from her visa application status showing that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20093 of 2021 is the resident of Australia. Further, the movement details of the petitioner dated 22.04.2021 revealed that, she never visited India after 31.03.2018. Therefore, it is confirmed that she was not attended the marriage between the first accused and the second respondent herein. She left India on 31.03.2018 and thereafter she never visited India. Therefore, the FIR has been foisted as against the petitioners by the second respondent with malafide intention.

6. Further, the first respondent registered the FIR in mechanical manner without any iota of evidence to attract any of the offence as alleged by the second respondent herein. Though the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent pointed out that there was a demand of dowry, no offence is registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act. On perusal of the entire allegations, all are bald and vague and no specific allegation made as against any of the petitioners.

7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported 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 undisp