IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.9602 of 2022 and Crl.MP.Nos.5633 & 5634 of 2022 Shivendra Saxena ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, W-26 All women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83

2.Rani Saxena ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of the case in CC.No.646 of 2022 pending on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sidharthan For Respondents For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate(crl.side)

For R2 : No appearance

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in CC.No.646 of 2022 pending on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was married by the petitioner on 12.12.2009 at Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, one daughter named Suhaani was born on 26.07.2010. Further, the complainant's in-laws i.e. the father and the mother of the petitioner demanded dowry and threatened the complainant This caused mental agony to the complainant. The petitioner had abused the complainant and her family. The relatives of the petitioner did not support her for solving the problems between them. Hence, the second respondent filed a complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.11 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(a), 294(b), 406, 420 & 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed for the offence under Sections 498(a), 420 & 506(ii) of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the very same set of allegations, the second respondent already filed domestic violence complaint in DVC.No.42 of 2021 and the same was also dismissed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.12.2023. In fact, the said complaint was dismissed for default. Further, the petitioner also filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same was decreed on 03.04.2023 by the Family Court, Gaziabad, Delhi in

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(cr.side) appearing for the first respondent and perused all the materials placed before this Court. Though notice was sent to the second respondent, no one on behalf of the second respondent appeared before this Court today, either by party or through pleader. 5. On perusal of records, it is revealed that the petitioner is the sold accused and all the allegations are bald and vague. There are no specific allegations to attract the offences as alleged by the prosecution. That apart, there is no allegation to make out a case for cruelty to attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC. It is to be noted that the petitioner is paying monthly rent for the house in which the second respondent is residing and he is also paying monthly maintenance to the second respondent.

6. Insofar as the offence under Section 420 of IPC, it is well settled that in order to bring the charge for the offence under Section 420 of IPC:

(i)the accused must fraudulently or dishonestly made some false compromise.

(ii)the defacto complainant must act on the strength of such false representation or compromise.

7. In the case on hand, the petitioner neither made any dishonest nor any fraudulent representation to the second respondent. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not at all made out as against the petitioner. Insofar as the offence under Section 506 Part II of I.P.C is concerned, it is relevant to extract the provision of Section 506 Part II of IPC hereunder:

“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fi