Advocates:
['M/S T C S RAJA CHOCKALINGAM', '', 'R BOOPATHY', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'M MANIVELAN', 'S UDHAYASANKAR', 'M/S S SURESH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.O.P.No.6053 of 2019

and

Crl.M.P.No.3375 of 2019

1.K.V.Chitra

2.K.Janci Rani

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

W-35, All Women Police Station,

Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

(Crime No.23 of 2017)

2.C.Suganya Sankari

... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the

impugned FIR registered in Crime No.23 of 2017 on the file of

the Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police Station,

Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045, dated 16.08.2017 and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr. T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam

For Respondents

: Mr. N.S. Suganthan, for R1

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Mr. S. Suresh, for R2

O R D E R

The petitioners herein are A3 and A4 in Crime No.23/2017,

which is under investigation under the respondent-police, based

on the complaint given by one Suganya Sankari/defacto

complainant.

2.

The sum and substance of the complaint is that the said

Suganya Sankari married to Murali Kannan, the brother of the

petitioners herein on 02.06.2005 at Madurai. Later, the

matrimonial home was lastly set up at Chennai, where the husband

of the defacto complainant were employed, after few years of his

employment at Delhi and foreign countries. It is stated that

there was no issue to the couple for nearly 10 years and all

attempts made to get a child through medical intervention, did

not succeed. At this juncture, alleging that the said Murali

Kannan had developed intimacy with one Vaishnavi Murugesan and

used to bring her to the home and started torturing the defacto

complainant to give consent for divorce, the complaint dated

08.07.2017 has been lodged with the Inspector of All Woman

Police Station, Tambaram.

3.

Apart from the above allegations of extra marital

affairs and forcing her to give divorce, there are allegations

against the petitioners also who are in-laws of the defacto

complainant that they and her brother-in-law, Senthil Kumar have

joined with her husband in causing cruelty and abusing her for

not begetting a child for their brother.

4.

The petitioners herein are before this Court with a

specific averments that they both are residents of Madurai and

they never interfered in the marital affair of the defaco

complainant and never instigated her husband to cause cruelty.

When the complaint was registered against them alleging the

jewels and other sridhana given to the defaco complainant at the

time of marriage were with the accused persons, some of the

jewels of the defacto complainant which were kept in the locker

maintained by the first petitioner, Chitra for safety purpose,

were taken out and handed over to the parents of the petitioners

herein. Receipt was received from them on 29.08.2017. Those

Jewels of Suganya Sankari was given by her parents as sridhana.

Her parents, on receiving it back, had given receipt duly

acknowledging the receipt of the jewels. Therefore, the learned

counsel for the petitioners would submit that when there is no

prima facie material which attracts the ingredients to prosecute

the petitioners under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b) and 406 IPC,

they need not be subjected to the ordeal of investigation. Even

as per the defacto complainant, on the face of the complaint,

there are no ingredients to constitute the offence under Section

498A, 323, 294(b) and 406 IPC.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defacto

complainant submitted that the complaint is under investigation

and the petitioners cannot seek for quash of the FIR without

participating in the investigation. There is enough material to

proceed against these petitioners since they were instigating

the husband of the defaco complainant to get divorce and marry

anot