Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4048 (MAD)

Jailani v. Thaslim Fathima

2018-11-01

M.NIRMAL KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners herein are the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to call for the records and quash the complaint in D.V.A No.1 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tiruppur. 2. The respondent herein is the complainant and the petitioners are the Father-in-law, Mother-in-law, Brother-in-law and Sister-in-law of the respondents/complainant. 3. The respondent/complainant namely Tasleen Fathima estranged wife of Bawa @ Shabiq Ahmed had preferred a complaint to the Protection Officer, who had forwarded a domestic incident report to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur in which the petitioners and the estranged husband of the complainant has been arrayed as respondents. The petitioners herein are the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the subsequent filing of the complaint to the Protection Officer, the respondent/complainant has lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Tiruppur, who had registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2009 and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and taken on file as C.C.No.21 of 2010 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur. 5. The allegations made before the Protection Officer and to the Police are one and the same and both the cases are pending before the same learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, which would amount to double jeopardy. Further, on the complaint to the All Women Police Station, the respondent/complainant had made an allegations only against her estranged husband namely Bawa @ Shabiq Ahmed and there is no allegations against the petitioners/respondents, which would go to show the petitioners/respondents have been roped in the above case just cause harassment and embarrassment. 6. It is an admitted case of the respondent/complainant that from 23.01.2008, she has been staying with her parents at Tiruppur, till, she preferred the complaint to the police and the Protection Officer. In the meanwhile, she had given birth to a girl baby on 09.06.2008. She had been with the petitioners from her marriage i.e., on 06.05.2007 upto 23.01.2008 roughly about seven months. During this entire period her allegations of causing harassment and subjecting her to cruelty is only against her estranged husband Bawa @ Shabiq Ahmed and the demand of Dowry after the child birth is also against her estranged husband. 7. She had been with the petitioners from her marriage i.e., on 06.05.2007 upto 23.01.2008 roughly about seven months. During this entire period her allegations of causing harassment and subjecting her to cruelty is only against her estranged husband Bawa @ Shabiq Ahmed and the demand of Dowry after the child birth is also against her estranged husband. 7. Further, the relief sought for in the Domestic Violence case is that, return of her jewels which had been used by her estranged husband for his business which ended up in loss and for her Maintenance. Hence, the relief are sought only against her estranged husband and no averments or relief are made and sought from the petitioners and hence the petitioners prayed to quash the proceedings against them. 8. Notice served to the respondent/complainant on 24.05.2017 and after receipt of the notice, she had failed to appear, the name of the second respondent printed in the cause list the respondent/ complainant had not appeared. 9. Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the Domestic Violence complaint was preferred on 20.02.2009 and the Criminal complaint to the All Women Police Station, Tiruppur was made on 26.03.2009 and it is an admitted case that the respondent had lived only for seven months after her marriage i.e, from 06.05.2007 to 23.01.2008 in joint family and thereafter, she had been living with her parents at Tiruppur and the complaint has been lodged one year, thereafter, during this period there has been no complaint against the petitioners and there has been an inordinate delay in lodging the present complaint, which causes serious doubt in the veracity of the complaint. Further, as to the petitioners, there is no specific averments against them. The respondent/complainant had roped the entire family members of her estranged husband to spite vengeance and the complaint is a motivated one. The respondent/complainant, despite notice being served failed to appear before this Court, the contention of the petitioners goes un-controverted. 10. In view of the above and on perusal of the materials, it is found that there is no case, made out to proceed against the petitioners/respondents. Coming to the such conclusion, the quash petition stands allowed. 11. The respondent/complainant, despite notice being served failed to appear before this Court, the contention of the petitioners goes un-controverted. 10. In view of the above and on perusal of the materials, it is found that there is no case, made out to proceed against the petitioners/respondents. Coming to the such conclusion, the quash petition stands allowed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/respondents in D.V.A No.1 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur stands quashed. Consequently the Miscellaneous petition is closed.