ORDER : This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.403 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, as far as A2 and A3. 2. It is averred in the petitioner that the petitioners being wife and husband are junior parents to the first accused; that the defacto complainant married the first accused Sivamani @ Joseph Stains on 26.08.2002 in Usilampatti and the couple left for Chennai after living together in Madurai for few months. Due to difference of opinion between the spouses, the first accused filed matrimonial original petition for restitution of conjugal rights as against the defacto complainant. On receipt of the summons from the civil Court, the defacto complainant resorted to lodge the present criminal complaint on 20.08.2008. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners and the first accused demanded dowry and tortured the defacto complainant. The respondent police recorded the statement even from the petitioners on 20.07.2008 itself and ignoring the same, the present charge sheet has been laid. Even in the first information report, she has stated that she was sent to her parental home five years back and she never met all the accused afterwards. The complaint has been filed only to settle down the personal scores with malafide intention to wreck vengeance on the petitioners. Therefore, it is nothing, but, an abuse of process of law and therefore, the case against the petitioners is to be quashed. 3. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is averred that the defacto complainant preferred a complaint stating that she got married with the first accused during the year 2002 and during the marriage, her parents gave 55 sovereign of gold ornaments and also gave Rs.2 lakhs as dowry along with other household articles and after marriage, the said first accused abused her with filthy language and also colluded with the petitioners herein and tortured for want of more dowry during 2003. She further alleged that when she was in her parental house, the petitioners herein and her husband went to her parental house on 20.07.2008 and demanded for more dowry. The investigating officer, after examining the witnesses, laid charge sheet and offences as alleged are made out. 4. She further alleged that when she was in her parental house, the petitioners herein and her husband went to her parental house on 20.07.2008 and demanded for more dowry. The investigating officer, after examining the witnesses, laid charge sheet and offences as alleged are made out. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the defacto complainant and her husband were living separately; that the petitioners had nothing to do with the affairs of the said spouses; that the complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant, after several years from the date of separation even from the husband and therefore, the case against the petitioners is to be quashed. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, contends that as the petitioners demanded dowry on 20.07.2008 from the parents of the defacto complainant and section 498(A) of I.P.C., being continues offence, the offence as alleged in the charge sheet are made out. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent also reiterates the same arguments as put forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioners are not the parents of A1. First petitioner is the sister of the defacto complainant's father and the wife of the first accused's junior father, the second respondent herein. The fact remains that the marriage was solemnized on 26.08.2002 and the couple lived for some months in Madurai and afterwards, the spouses left for Madras and had been living there separately. The fact also remains that the first accused filed I.D.O.P.No.15 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights as against the defacto complainant on 14.07.2008. The present criminal complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant on 20.08.2008 i.e. subsequent to the above I.D.O.P. In the first information report, the defacto complainant has specifically stated that she was sent to her parental home five years back and after that, she never met them including the petitioners. 8. In the first information report, in column 3(a), the date of occurrence is mentioned as from 26.08.2002 to 20.04.2008. Even as per the complaint, there was demand of dowry and torture in 2003 and there was demand of property by way of dowry on 20.07.2008. The new cause of action has been purposely brought in to implicate the petitioners. As already pointed out, the date of occurrence is given otherwise in column 3(a) of the first information report. Even as per the complaint, there was demand of dowry and torture in 2003 and there was demand of property by way of dowry on 20.07.2008. The new cause of action has been purposely brought in to implicate the petitioners. As already pointed out, the date of occurrence is given otherwise in column 3(a) of the first information report. Even the demand of property on 20.07.2008 is improbable in view of the statement recorded by the police, from petitioners 1 and 2 on 20.07.2008, wherein, it was agreed to pay Rs.1.25 lakhs to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has been given as against the petitioners only to take vengeance on the petitioners cannot be brushed side. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Preeti Gupta and another V. State of Jharkhand and another reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3363, wherein, it has been held as follows : “27. Admittedly, appellant No.1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant No.2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharastra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with respondent No.2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of process of law.” Another decision in Chandralekha and others V. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 374. In this judgment, it has been held as follows : “The marriage took place on 09.07.2002 and Respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15.02.2003 i.e. Within a period of seven months. Thereafter, Respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR was lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against Appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that Appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. Thereafter, Respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR was lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against Appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that Appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent 2 against Appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations.” 11. In this case also, the defacto complainant's husband left for Chennai immediately after few months from the date of marriage and she had been in parental home for the past five years prior to the lodging of the complaint and in those circumstances, the petitioners, who have been living in Madurai, are alleged to have demand dowry. 12. The alleged demand of property on 20.07.2008 has been made only for the purpose of filing the complaint is made very clear, in the light of the statement recorded by the police on the same day from the petitioners 1 and 2. Therefore, the implications of the petitioners in the complaint is nothing but, to harass them. Having put up separate residence for defacto complainant and her husband/A1 at Chennai even in 2002 and having been in the parental home for the past five years, the present complaint of the defacto complainant by including the present petitioners herein after several years, is nothing, but to wreck vengeance on the petitioners and it is nothing but, an abuse of process of law. 13. For the above said reasons, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 403 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District are quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.