The High Court will not quash criminal proceedings involving disputed factual allegations of dowry harassment and misappropriation once a charge sheet is filed; such issues must be resolved through a full trial.

ORDER

The petitioner / accused facing trial in CC No.52/2026 for the offences under Section 498A & 406 IPC, have filed this quash petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant’s daughter had a second marriage and there was no demand of dowry and the marriage had took place at Coimbatore on 04.03.2022. After the marriage, they came to Madurai where the petitioners were residing and on 13.03.2022 the first petitioner and the defacto complainant’s daughter Madhumitha went to South Africa as they were employed there. There was some misunderstanding between them and they got separated and were living separately. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after nine days of their marriage, both of them were in Coimbatore and Madurai and there was no entrustment of any gold jewellery with the petitioners. The third petitioner is not even married and she was a student and the second petitioner’s husband is also no more. Hence prayed for quash.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of the defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.18/2023 has been registered on 30.06.2023 and after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 IPC against the petitioners and listing 8 witnesses. Immediately, the petitioners have filed this quash petition and stalled the trial. He further submitted that the de facto complainant passed away and now it is the victim and her two sisters who will speak about the harassment, cruelty, entrustment of gold jewels at the time of marriage which was detained by the petitioners and misappropriated the same.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent / defacto complainant submitted that earlier to the registration of FIR, enquiry was conducted and during enquiry, the second petitioner had categorically admitted retention of 42 sovereigns with her and she took 10 days time to return back the 42 sovereigns jewel, but thereafter failed to appear and participate in enquiry and thereafter, only a case has been registered. He further submitted that the marriage photographs and other materials are available to prove that during their marriage, jewels were presented to the victim and the same has been retained by the petitioners. Further, it is clear that only for 10 days the victim and her husband were together in India and thereafter, they immediately left to South Africa confirming that the jewels, valuables, and other articles presented during their marriage have been handed over to the second petitioner who is retaining the same and enjoying it. He further submitted that the third respondent was a college student at the time of marriage and the second respondent has got no serious objection to quash the case against the third petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions and finding that the points raised by the petitioners are factual which has to be decided during trial, this court is not inclined to allow this petition. However, this Court is inclined to quash the case as against the third petitioner alone.

6. Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.52/2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, is hereby quashed as against the third petitioner / A3 alone. The petitioners 1 and 2 are directed to appear before trial Court and make their defence. The trial Judge shall complete the trial within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed.

Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.