Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4278 (MAD)

N. Varadhan v. S. Sudharson

2012-10-12

B.RAJENDRAN

body2012
Judgment The petitioner is the father of the deceased Priya. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2007 by which the Court below, accepted the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram under Section 173 (2) seeking permission to close the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact, after overruling the protest petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage of his daughter Priya with the first respondent herein was solemnised on 26.01.2001. According to the petitioner, his daughter was subjected to mental agony and cruelty by the respondents, with the result, she suffered 'asthma' and eventually died on 11.02.2005. Therefore, contending that her daughter was subjected to mental cruelty and harassment by the respondents, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram praying to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the respondents for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 120 B of IPC. According to the petitioner, his daughter Priya died on 11.02.2005 due to 'asthma' and such ailment was caused because of the harassment meted out to her at the instance of the respondents/accused. 3. The first accused was employed as a Software professional in United Status of America. After the marriage, on 20.02.2001, the petitioner's daughter and the first respondent left for United States of America. Even prior to that, the respondents 2 and 3 have left India to America and they were staying with the younger brother of the first respondent at America. On 28.04.2012, the petitioner's daughter and the first respondent, as also the respondents 2 and 3, came to India in connection with the marriage of the younger brother of the first respondent. After the marriage, on 05.05.2012, the first respondent returned to United States of America leaving the petitioner's daughter with the respondent 2 and 3. Thereafter, when the petitioner's daughter wanted to go to America to join her husband, the respondents 2 and 3 uttered a falsehood that the visa application submitted to the petitioner's daughter was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that, her daughter was deliberately not disclosed about the whereabouts of her husband/first respondent at America by the respondents 2 and 3 by which his daughter was subjected to untold mental harassment besdes that it resulted in her daughter suffering asthma which led to her death. The contention of the petitioner is that, her daughter was deliberately not disclosed about the whereabouts of her husband/first respondent at America by the respondents 2 and 3 by which his daughter was subjected to untold mental harassment besdes that it resulted in her daughter suffering asthma which led to her death. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents are the cause for the death of her daughter, who have subjected her to mental cruelty and harassment and hence, they are liable to be prosecuted and punished for having committed the offences under Section 498-A and 120-B of IPC. 4. The private complaint filed by the petitioner was forwarded by the court below for investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram. Upon investigation, a report was filed before the Court below under Section 173 (2) of Cr. P.C. stating that when the first respondent offered to take back the petitioner's daughter to America during May 2002, she refused to accompany him on the ground that the petitioner had staunch belief in astrology and as per astrological advise, her daughter has to accompany her husband after four months. Further, she wants to attend the marriage of her brother at Madurai. It was further stated in the report that the misunderstanding arose during June 2002 when the respondents 2 and 3 objected to the petitioner's daughter removing the thali from her neck inasmuch as it was against their custom. This had offended the petitioner's daughter and she immediately went to her parents house. Thereafter, the matrimonial relationship strained between both sides. It was also stated that the petitioner's daughter stayed in her parents house for about three years. It was further stated that from 12.11.2004 and 17.11.2004 and from 27.12.2004 to 31.12.2004,, she suffered from 'asthma' and admitted in Apollo Hospital for treatment, but inspite of treatment, on 11.02.2005, she died. It was further stated in the report that the neighbours and other relatives of both sides were enquired and none of them have spoken about any harassment or ill-treatment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the respondents. Therefore, the Sub-Inspector of Police submitted his report to that effect and prayed for closure of the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact. Therefore, the Sub-Inspector of Police submitted his report to that effect and prayed for closure of the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact. The petitioner also submitted his protest petition on 12.10.2002 as against the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police specifcally reiterating that her daughter died due to the harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the respondents. After considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the Court below accepted the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police and closed the complaint as mistake of fact. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly argued that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC has been made out in the instant case. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, to satisfy the requirements of Section 498A of IPC, the petitioner has to prove that his daughter was subjected to mental cruelty and ill-treatment at the hands of the respondents and this was proved by enough material evidences. The first respondent/husband stayed in United States of America without disclosing his whereabouts to his wife and this has resulted in the petitioner's daughter suffering acute mental harassment, mental disturbance and cruelty and only this has caused her the asthma disease which resulted in her death. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would further contend that when the petitioner's daughter wanted to join her husband at United States of America, the respondents 2 and 3 deliberately made a false statement as if the visa application of the petitioner's daughter was cancelled, thereby the respondents 2 and 3 prevented the petitioner's daughter from joining her husband, therefore, the offence under Sections 498-A and 120-B are attracted. The action of the respondents are not bonafide inasmuch as they have ill-treated the petitioner's daughter and the trauma and mental agony undergone by the deceased had led to her death. The court below has not properly appreciated the voluminous material evidence available on record which resulted in closure of the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact and therefore he prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Case. 6. The court below has not properly appreciated the voluminous material evidence available on record which resulted in closure of the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact and therefore he prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Case. 6. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (G.V. Siddaramesh vs. State of Karnataka) (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 152 to contend that cruelty can be either physical cruelty of mental cruelty and if it is established, the accused are liable for prosecution. 7. I heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. Originally, the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P.C. alleging that the respondents have committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 120-B. The main contentions raised in the private complaint are that the respondents 2 and 3 deliberately not disclosed the whereabouts of the first accused to the petitioner's daughter; that the respondents 2 and 3 deliberately uttered falsehood that the visa application of the petitioner's daughter was rejected so as to prevent her from joining her husband at America; that during June 2002, the respondents 2 and 3 scolded the petitioner's daughter for having infringed the tradition and customs which they hitherto followed and also compelled the petitioner's daughter to give divorce. 8. The private complaint was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, who, after investigation, submitted his report referring the complaint as mistake of fact. In the report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, it was stated that during the course of investigation, he had examined the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3, neighbours of the respondents 2 and 3 and other witnesses who are residing very near to their house. In the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, it was stated that none of the witnesses, during the course of investigation, have stated anything about any ill-treatment inflicted by the respondents against the petitioner or they have subjected the petitioner's daughter to any form of harassment. From the report, it transpires that there was a quarrel on 06.06.2002 with reference to the deceased Priya removing her thali from her neck and this was objected to by the respondents 2 and 3 inasmuch as it was against their custom and tradition. From the report, it transpires that there was a quarrel on 06.06.2002 with reference to the deceased Priya removing her thali from her neck and this was objected to by the respondents 2 and 3 inasmuch as it was against their custom and tradition. But it was not mentioned in the report whether they have harassed the petitioner's daughter in this regard. 9. It is seen from the evidence available on record that the first respondent sought to take the deceased along with him to America, but it is the deceased who refused to accompany him on the ground that the petitioner, on the basis of the advise from astrologists, informed her that the auspicious time for her to re-join her husband will be after four months from that date and also due to the fact that she wants to attend the marriage of her brother at Madurai. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was deliberately left by her husband with the respondents 2 and 3 and it is the deceased who refused to accompany her husband as per the advise of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner's daugher suffered from asthma and therefore, she was taken by the petitioner to his house under the guise of treatment and that the petitioner's daughter was in her parents house for more than three years. Admittedly the petitioner was in her parents house for more than three years and there is no evidence available on record to show that during the said period of three years, she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment by the respondents. In the absence of the same, it has to be held that there is no nexus to the death of the petitioner's daughter to the alleged harassment or mental cruelty inflicted on her by the respondents. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the deceased suffered from asthma, she died due to such disease and not as contended by the petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty, harassment, ill-treatment and mental disturbance at the hands of the respondents, due to which she died. 10. The petitioner, in his evidence given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, has only stated that the marriage between her daughter and the first respondent was solemnised on 20.01.2001 and after the marriage the couple went to America and stayed there for some time. 10. The petitioner, in his evidence given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, has only stated that the marriage between her daughter and the first respondent was solemnised on 20.01.2001 and after the marriage the couple went to America and stayed there for some time. The couple came back to India to attend a family marriage at Kumbakonam and thereafter the first respondent went back to America leaving the petitioner's daughter in India with the respondents 2 and 3. Even during the stay of the couple at India, the petitioner himself stated that they were living together happily. It was further stated that his daughter could not accompany her husband at that point of time due to various reasons. The petitioner also admits that there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 with reference to the petitioner's daughter removing the thali from her neck. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3, citing this as a reason, demanded his daughter to give divorce. On 13.07.2003, there was a panchayat took place and the decision arrived at was not accepted by the first respondent. The petitioner also admits that after the marriage, his daughter stayed with him for atleast 3 to 4 years and she was in their house. The petitioner also admits that his daughter suffered 'asthma' in the year 2004 and eventually she died on 11.02.2005. 11. When we analyse the sequences of facts coupled with the evidence available on record, it is clear that atleast till 2002, the petitioner's daughter and the first respondent were living happily and there was no specific instances of misunderstanding between the couple. Infact, the first respondent and the petitioner's daughter came from America to India to attend a family marriage at Kumbakonam and thereafter, the first respondent returned back to America after a short stay in India, by leaving the petitioner's daughter with the respondents 2 and 3. Admittedly, there was no demand for payment of any money by the respondents in the form of dowry. 12. The court below pointed out that in the letter dated 11.07.2002 written by the petitioner, he only stated that his daughter is happily living with her husband. Admittedly, there was no demand for payment of any money by the respondents in the form of dowry. 12. The court below pointed out that in the letter dated 11.07.2002 written by the petitioner, he only stated that his daughter is happily living with her husband. Further, the marriage took place on 26.01.2001 but till the date of the letter on 11.07.2012, the couple were not blessed with any children and therefore, the petitioner stated that he is praying the Almighty to bless them with children. It was further stated that he believes in astrology and as per astrological prediction, the couple will have atleast 2 children. Even in the letters written by the deceased herself to her father namely the petitioner on 19.11.2002, 03.12.2002, 09.01.2003, 24.01.2003, 13.02.2003 and 05.11.2003, no where she had stated that she has been subjected to harassment or ill treatment by the respondents at any point of time. On the contrary, she had only stated that there were some misunderstanding between her and her husband and it can be sorted out by mutual discussion. Even as per the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, it was stated that the dispute arose only when the respondents 2 and 3 chided the petitioner's daughter for having removed her thali and this cannot be blown out of proportion. Therefore, it is evident that there was no harassment or ill treatment meted out to the petitioner's daughter in any form, as alleged by the petitioner. 13. In the backdrop of the above material evidence and in the light of the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be said that the trivial misunderstanding between the petitioner's daughter and the respondents cannot be construed as a harassment or ill-treatment meted out to the petitioner's daughter or such harassment resulted in the death of the deceased especially when the petitioner himself admitted that his daughter was admitted in Apollo hospital and treated for 'Asthma' and that his daughter died due to Asthma. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the alleged ill-treatment portrayed by the petitioner against the respondents. There is no evidence available to hold that the respondents are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 120-B of IPC. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the alleged ill-treatment portrayed by the petitioner against the respondents. There is no evidence available to hold that the respondents are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 120-B of IPC. Therefore, I hold that the Court below is justified in holding that there is no case made out by the petitioner to launch prosecution against the respondents/accused. 14. The decision relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner reported in (G.V. Siddaramesh vs. State of Karnataka) (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 152 cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Relying on this decision, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that cruelty need not be physical but it can also be mental cruelty or mental disturbance and if it is established, the accused are liable for prosecution. A perusal of the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court would indicate that the Honourable Supreme Court held that cruelty can be either physical or mental cruelty, however, it cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. 15. In the present case, the petitioner mainly contend that inasmuch as the respondents 2 and 3 did not disclose the whereabouts of the first respondent to the petitioner's daughter, she was subjected to harassment, mental disturbance and ill-treatment. This was not proved by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Court especially when the petitioner himself admitted that the couple were happy atleast till June 2002; that his daughter stayed with him atleast for 3 to 4 years after the marriage and that his daughter suffered asthma for which she was treated in Apollo hospital. Therefore, there is no nexus between the alleged cruelty or harassment or mental disturbance said to have been inflicted by the respondents on the petitioner's daughter and the death of the deceased. 16. The Court below carefully considered the material evidences available on record to conclude that there is no evidence available to launch prosecution against the respondents and that the report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police under Section 173 (2) of Cr. P.C. to close the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact is acceptable. 16. The Court below carefully considered the material evidences available on record to conclude that there is no evidence available to launch prosecution against the respondents and that the report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police under Section 173 (2) of Cr. P.C. to close the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact is acceptable. Such a conclusion arrived at by the court below is based on material evidence available on record and I do not find any reason to interfere with such a conclusion arrived at by the Court below. The Criminal Revision Case is therefore dismissed.