BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 25.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3254 of 2024

and

CRL.M.P. Nos.2578 and 2576 of 2024

1.Marimuthu

2.Pappa

3.Kavitha Devi

4.Annakamu ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 5

-Vs-

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,

Thirupparankundram,

Madurai City,

Madurai.

Crime No.29/2022. .... 1^st Respondents / De-facto Complainant

2.Thenmozhi ... 2^nd Respondents / De-facto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.926 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, dated 09.05.2023 and quash the

same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Velmurugan For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2 : Mr.C.Sundaravadivel

ORDER

The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.926 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, dated 09.05.2023, which was filed for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 406 and 506(i) of IPC.

2. The allegation in the impugned final report is that the first accused, who is son of the petitioners 1 and 2, got married to the second respondent on 02.07.2017; that at the time of marriage, the parents of the second respondent had gifted 22 sovereigns of gold jewels; that the first accused lived with the second respondent only for 1 ½ years and during that time, the petitioners along with the first accused had committed cruelty in many ways; that a child was born out of the wedlock; that the second respondent was sent for treatment to Kerala for two years; that thereafter, they had never permitted the second respondent to visit the child and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation of cruelty in connection with dowry demand is false; that the second respondent had suffered from an ailment; that when she went for treatment, she handed over her child to the petitioners; that the petitioners 3 and 4, who are sister and sister's husband of the first accused, are living separately; that the allegations, at best, would suggest that there is a dispute with regard to the custody of the child; that in the anticipatory bail filed by the first accused in Crl.O.P(MD) No.593 of 2023, this Court had recorded that the jewels of the second respondent was returned to her; and that the impugned prosecution as against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent, who reiterated the allegations in the final report and the material filed with the final report.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the allegations would constitute the offences alleged; and that points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in the quash petition.

6. From the statement of the second respondent made during investigation and the statements of the other witnesses, it is seen that there are materials to proceed as against the first accused in the trial. The second respondent has lodged a FIR in Crime No.29 of 2022, which has culminated in the impugned final report. In the said FIR, the second respondent had stated that the first accused had filed a petition for divorce making false allegations; that the petitioners along with the first accused had threatened the second respondent of dire consequences, if she did not withdraw the Police complaint; that the petitioners did not permit the second respondent to visit the child; and that they retained 22 sovereigns of gold jewels belonging to the second respondent.

7. As stated earlier, in the impugned final report, the main allegation as against the petitioners is that the petitioners are refusing to permit the second respondent to visit the child and hand over the custody of the child. It is not in dispute that the second respondent has filed a petition in H.M.