ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. Though the second respondent has been served with the notice and her name has been printed in the cause list today, there is no appearance on her behalf. 2. While the first petitioner and second petitioner are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second respondent/defacto complainant, the third petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner and fourth petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the defacto complainant had married the son of the petitioners 1 & 2 namely, Yokesh Raj Mohan on 03.03.2014. Owing to certain misunderstanding, the couple separated very shortly and the husband of the defacto complainant had filed an application seeking for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.3505 of 2014. The second respondent herein had preferred a complaint before the first respondent police in CSR No.141 of 2015 dated 25.05.2015. Due to the said complaint given by the defacto complainant, the restitution of conjugal rights petition came to be withdrawn by her husband on 31.08.2015. In these circumstances, the second respondent's husband had filed a petition for divorce in O.P.No.3525 of 2015 dated 08.09.2015 before the learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai which is said to be pending. 4. Pending the divorce petition, the second respondent's earlier first compliant dated 25.05.2015 came to be referred to the Social Welfare Officer and by a report dated 21.12.2015, the Social Welfare Officer had opined that there was no prima facie allegation with regard to dowry harassment. In this background, the second respondent had filed another complaint dated 25.08.2016 with the same set of allegations made in her first complaint dated 25.05.2015. This second complaint came to be registered in Cr.No.6 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 498 A, 406, 506(ii) IPC and the first respondent had filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.47 of 2017 dated 28.04.2017. The said proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai is under challenge in the present petition. 5. The said proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai is under challenge in the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent had mechanically registered the second respondent's complaint without taking into consideration the fact that on a similar set of facts, the second respondent had earlier filed a complaint dated 25.05.2015, in which the Social Welfare Officer had rendered a finding that there was no prima facie allegation of dowry harassment and hence submitted that the offence of Section 498 A IPC as well as the other Sections 406 & 506(ii) IPC were not attracted. The learned counsel further submitted that the second complaint has been made in order to wreck vengeance on the petitioners' herein in view of the fact that no offence has been made out as against these petitioners and particularly, the third and fourth petitioners who were living away from the second respondent's matrimonial house had no role to play in their matrimonial life. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the petition has been filed to harass the petitioners herein and therefore, prayed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai as against these petitioners. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent submitted that the charges were levelled against these petitioners based on the second respondent's complaint as well as the statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. from various witnesses and therefore, argued that the charges have been properly laid. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are matters to be determined during the course of trial and hence, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. needs no indulgence. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 8. From the averments in the complaint dated 25.08.2016, it is seen that there is no reference to the second respondent's earlier complaint dated 25.05.2015. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 8. From the averments in the complaint dated 25.08.2016, it is seen that there is no reference to the second respondent's earlier complaint dated 25.05.2015. The suppression of the first complaint by the second respondent in her second complaint becomes material in the present case, in view of the fact that based on her averments in the first complaint, the Social Welfare Officer had conducted an enquiry and has filed a report dated 21.12.2015 in which she has come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie material to prove that there was dowry harassment on the part of the petitioners herein. Hence, the suppression of a vital fact in the second respondent's second complaint leading to framing of charges against the petitioners and her husband becomes important in the present case, for the simple fact that had the enquiry report of the Social Welfare Officer be placed before the Investigating Officer, the charges may not have been framed as against these petitioners. On this ground, the petitioners have made out a prima facie for interference. 9. Insofar as the allegations as against the petitioners are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand [ 2010 (7) SCC 667 ] had observed that it is a matter of common experience that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country and that most of the complaint are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. A large number of such complaints are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motives. The tendency of implicating the husband and his other relatives are also not uncommon. It is further seen that in most of the complaints, the relatives of the husband who reside in different places away from the matrimonial house and who rarely visit the defacto complainant's house or never visited are being implicated. In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observations, it can be seen that the present complaint as against the petitioners 3 & 4 are concerned, is one such example. 10. In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observations, it can be seen that the present complaint as against the petitioners 3 & 4 are concerned, is one such example. 10. The averments in the complaint as well as the statements recorded from the witnesses leading to the filing of the charge sheet does not make out offences under Sections 498 A or 406, 506(ii) IPC as against the in-laws and in the absence of such allegations, it can only be derived that the respondent/defacto complainant has implicated the petitioners 3 & 4 for the sole purpose of harassing them and wrecking vengeance against her husband. The very fact that the defacto complainant/second respondent has chosen to implicate the petitioners 3 & 4 in the complaint without proper allegations to implicate them for the offences, the averments made as against the petitioners 1 & 2 also become questionable. While analysing as to whether the complaint has been made out as against the first or second petitioner from the statements of the defacto complainant as well as the witnesses, the suppression of the earlier complaint on the same set of facts, will have a bearing on the genuinity of the defacto complainant's second complaint. From the very fact that the defacto complainant has chosen to suppress the report of the Social Welfare Officer, it can be concluded that there may not be any truth in the averments of the dowry harassment made against the first and second petitioner herein. 11. In the meantime, the second respondent's husband had withdrawn the petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 31.08.2015 and had chosen to file a petition for divorce on 08.09.2015. On receipt of the summons in the divorce proceedings, the second respondent had filed the present complaint dated 25.08.2016 which culminated to framing of charges in C.C.No.47 of 2016. As such, I am of the view that the second respondent had chosen to file the second complaint with a mala fide intention of harassing the petitioners. In the absence of the offence being made out as against these petitioners and also in view of the fact that the second respondent had suppressed the report of the Social Welfare Officer stating that the offence of dowry harassment has not been made out as against the petitioners herein, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 12. In the absence of the offence being made out as against these petitioners and also in view of the fact that the second respondent had suppressed the report of the Social Welfare Officer stating that the offence of dowry harassment has not been made out as against the petitioners herein, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, the proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.