Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1156 (MAD)

Nandini v. The Commissioner of Police & Others

2003-07-28

V.KANAGARAJ

body2003
Judgment :- The above criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to register the F.I.R in respect of the petitioner’s complaint dated 18.12.2002 and transfer the investigation of the same to the fifth respondent, the Joint Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai-6 and grant such further or other orders. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the Crl.side as well. 3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the petitioner’s husband Thiru.K.Anandkumar is the first son of Thiru.P.Kalimuthu, I.P.S., Addl.Director General of Police, Home Guards, Tamil Nadu and he is working at M/s.Orbitech Solutions Ltd., Cathedral Road, Chennai-6; that their marriage took place on 11.2.2001 and out of the wedlock a male child was born on 13.2.2002. 4. The petitioner would submit that she was subjected to both mental, physical and dowry harassment by her husband and his parents; that in spite of severe harassment, she tried to reconcile and was about to join her husband along with their child in London, but all her efforts were thwarted by her parents-in-law and at their instigation by her husband; that several compromise talks at the behest of different persons of repute too failed and herself and her parents were continuously humiliated and defamed by her in-laws; that they were also threatened with dire consequences by her father-in-law and hence she contacted the All Women Police at Anna Nagar, within the jurisdiction of which the cruelties took place, to prefer a complaint against her husband and her in-laws, but she was advised to go to the City Police Commissioner, the first respondent herein. 5. 5. The petitioner would further submit that for the above reasons, on 18.12.2002, she met the first respondent in person accompanied by her parents and her infant child and gave the complaint along with an audio cassette containing the recording of un-parliamentary words of threat used by her father-in-law in the course of telephonic conversation; that the first respondent told her to meet the second respondent; that accordingly, she met the second respondent Mr.Nailwal, I.P.S. on 19.12.2002 and gave him a copy of the same complaint and the audio cassette and apprised him of her seeing the first respondent too and that he said that he would do the needful according to law; that neither the first respondent nor the second respondent acknowledged the receipt of her complaint. 6. The petitioner would further submit that in the meanwhile Mr.Nailwal, I.P.S. was transferred and Mr.Rajagopalan, I.P.S. was appointed as the Director General of Police; that on 21.1.2003, she met Mr.R.Rajagopalan along with her parents and her infant child in person; that he enquired about her complaint and said that he would do the needful. 7. The petitioner would further submit that thereafter Ms.Radhika, DSP, CBCID, Chennai, called the petitioner over phone and asked her to be present on 8.2.2003 for enquiry and as such she met the DSP, CBCID on 8.2.2003 at her office and gave her statement of the facts regarding her complaint; that thereafter the said DSP also enquired the petitioner’s parents, Mr.Kannappan and Ms.Amsavalli, her aunt Ms.Nagarathinam, her friend Ms.SNithya etc., between 8.2.2003 and 15.3.2003, but no action has been taken with regard to her complaint; that despite repeated requests to the respondents, till date the petitioner has not been informed about the action taken on her complaint. 8. 8. The petitioner would further submit that since her father-in-law is a very senior officer, she sent a copy of the written complaint dated 18.12.2002 addressed to the fourth respondent, Home Secretary, and also the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu; that though they have received her complaint, no action seems to have been taken in this regard; that she apprehends that the first and second respondents will not initiate criminal prosecution as required by law against her in-laws and her husband because of the clout enjoyed by the high status of her father-in-law who was even former Chennai City Police Commissioner and in such circumstances the petitioner has come forward with this Crl.O.P. praying for the relief extracted supra. 9. The learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side would file the letter dated 22.7.2003 from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai to the Government Advocate to the effect that on the petitioner’s complaint dated 18.12.2002 to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, and the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamilnadu and since on the directions of the Home Secretary, the CBCID had already commenced enquiry into the petition, the Central Crime Branch of Chennai City Police decided not to pursue this. 10. 10. The learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side would also file the report of the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai-2 addressed to the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4 to the effect that on receipt of the Government D.O. letter dated 10.2.2003 from the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai-9 addressed to the Director General of Police, Chennai-4, he has investigated into on the above complaint and has examined 14 witnesses and from the examinations of all the witnesses, and from the scrutiny of the marriage photographs and videographs, he would find that the girl was given with huge amount of gold jewels and silver ware along with other household articles, but there is no evidence for the demand of dowry except the statement of Tmt.Nandini and her parents; that most of the marriage expenditure was done by the parents of the girl except the marriage hall rent and other minor expenditures which were borne by Tr.Kalimuthu, I.P.S. and there is no evidence about the demand of jewels either during marriage, during Valaikappu or regarding the demand of a car; that the difference of opinion between Tmt.Nandini and her husband seems to have started over the issue of her husband consuming alcohol which she came to know about this after marriage, finding fault with him and asked him to stop it, but over a period of time, this has become the main reason for their misunderstanding; that this behaviour of Tmt.Nandini seems to have not been disliked by Tmt.& Tr.Kalimuthu; that after the birth of the child especially after the naming ceremony, the difference of opinion between both the families widened, in deciding to name the child; that even during the compromise talk held by Dr.Manivannan,IAS, Tmt.Nandini or her parents have not made any complaint about demand for dowry or harassment, but the main problem or point of discussion was about the place of stay and the drinking habit of Anandkumar. 11. 11. Further, the allegation by Tr.Kalimuthu, IPS and his family members was that Tmt.Nandini and her family members are abusing their family by mentioning caste name, but the allegation was also not made to any of the mediators or during the compromise talk; that only with the advocate notice for divorce by Tr.Anandkumar, the caste issue has come into focus and in the reply to the notice by Tmt.Nandini, the dowry factor has come into focus. 12. Regarding the allegation about the using of filthy language by Tr.Kalimuthu, I.P.S., during a telephone call to the petitioner which has been recorded by her, no opinion could be offered without a scientific analysis and the allegation that Tr.Kalimuthu, IPS., demanded the key of the secret locker during that telephone talk is in no way connected to her chief allegation of dowry harassment. He has finally concluded that the problem is more of an ego clash between the families than dowry harassment or abusing by mentioning the caste. 13. The purpose of the above criminal original petition by the petitioner is for a direction to be issued to respondents 1 to 3 to register the FIR in respect of the petitioner's complaint dated 18.12.2002 and transfer the investigation of the same to the fifth respondent, the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. 14. 13. The purpose of the above criminal original petition by the petitioner is for a direction to be issued to respondents 1 to 3 to register the FIR in respect of the petitioner's complaint dated 18.12.2002 and transfer the investigation of the same to the fifth respondent, the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, adhering to the averments of the petition, would submit that the petitioner is from a decent, well educated family and that she was given in marriage to Mr.K.Anandkumar, son of Mr.P.Kalimuthu, IPS, presently Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, Tamil Nadu; that she was subjected to dowry harassment and torture by her husband and his parents and all her efforts of reconciliation having failed, she had to take the hard decision to lodge the criminal complaints against her husband and his parents for dowry harassment and torture with the jurisdiction All Women Police at Anna Nagar and on their advice with the City Police Commissioner, Chennai and since her request was not paid attention to, she even lodged complaints before the second and fourth respondents, the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and since her prayers have not been answered in the affirmative by these authorities, ultimately, she has to recourse to this Court by means of the above criminal original petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to register the case on her complaint dated 18.12.2002 and transfer the investigation of the same to the CBI, Chennai. 15. The learned counsel would also highlight that since the petitioner has lost faith in getting justice at the hands of the respondents 1 to 4, she is left with no choice but to seek the above relief and would pray to grant the same. 16. 15. The learned counsel would also highlight that since the petitioner has lost faith in getting justice at the hands of the respondents 1 to 4, she is left with no choice but to seek the above relief and would pray to grant the same. 16. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, causing production of a letter dated 22.7.2003 addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai, would submit that as per the said letter, the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 18.12.2002 with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Tamil Nadu, CBCID, having been directed by the Home Secretary, the CBCID had commenced enquiry into the said representation of the petitioner and hence the Central Crime Branch of Chennai City Police decided not to pursue the same. 17. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that now the result of the Crime Branch CID, Chennai has also been forwarded to the Director General of Police, Chennai, as per the communication made by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai-2 in his proceeding in C6/16/005125/2003, dated 5.4.2003 wherein on a discrete enquiry held into all the representations made on the part of the petitioner, examining 14 witnesses and taking into consideration various circumstances, the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai would ultimately arrive at the conclusion thereby holding that there had been no iota of truth in the allegation of dowry harassment or torture and only in the reply given by the petitioner to the Advocate's notice issued by her husband for divorce, the dowry factor came into focus, thus ultimately concluding that the problem is more of an ego clash between the families than dowry harassment or abuse and therefore it could very well be concluded that the petitioner's complaint before the authorities alleging dowry demand and harassment is neither true nor is there any basis for the said allegation as it has been ultimately concluded by the respondents 1 to 3 and therefore there is absolutely no necessity either to register a case or to transfer the same for investigation by the fifth respondent and would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition. 18. 18. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate as well, what comes to be established is that on account of some minor differences that arose in between the petitioner and her husband in their marital life during the time that they were living at the petitioner's husband's abode at Anna Nagar, Chennai, the petitioner having withdrawn her company from her husband has started living with her parents, of late during which period, the petitioner seems to have lodged complaints many in number not only against her husband but also against her parents-in-law as a culmination of which, a discrete enquiry having been ordered by the fourth respondent, Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, an officer of the stature of the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, has been entrusted with the job of conducting the enquiry and he having examined 14 witnesses and further having gone through the materials placed on record and assessing the other circumstances encircling the whole episode regarding the complaints of the petitioner particularly of dowry demand, harassment and torture, would ultimately arrive at the conclusion that there is neither any demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner's husband or his parents nor has there been any harassment for that purpose nor any torture have erupted into the marital life of the petitioner with her husband and the said episode of dowry demand and harassment has been invoked and focused only in the reply issued by the petitioner to the notice of divorce issued by her husband Mr.Anand Kumar as it comes to be established in the communication sent by the Additional Director General of Police Crime Branch CID, Chennai to the Director General of Police in his proceeding in C6/16/005125/2003, dated 5.4.2003. 19. Even in the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 18.12.2002, the petitioner is only able to bring out certain items of cash and jewels that her parents offered her during the time of her marriage and there is no specific allegation of any demand of dowry or harassment for that matter. 19. Even in the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 18.12.2002, the petitioner is only able to bring out certain items of cash and jewels that her parents offered her during the time of her marriage and there is no specific allegation of any demand of dowry or harassment for that matter. Needless to mention, since in the above criminal original petition the petitioner is not able to even bring out a single instance of such demand of dowry or harassment, the only conclusion that could be arrived at in the above circumstances of the case of the petitioner as projected in the above criminal original petition is that the petitioner having failed to resolve the differences that arose in between herself and her husband in spite of making frantic efforts by herself on complaints and with the help of powerful mediators in her family circle, in order to bring her husband and his parents to submission, has resorted to the dowry factor without any truth or basis attached to the same. 20. There is no pith or substance in the complaint of the petitioner for a case to be registered either for dowry demand or harassment in the clash between the petitioner and her husband and consequently, the question of transfer of the investigation to the fifth respondent does not arise and in the above circumstances, this Court is left with no choice but to conclude that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the above criminal original petition and hence the following order: In result, the above criminal original petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed as such.