JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.03 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in Crime No.03 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief:- The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the wife of A1-Arockia Rajesh Rodrigo. The marriage between them took place, on 05/06/2017 in Tuticorin. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 is the cousin sister of A1. During the marriage, as demanded by the parents of A1, she was provided with sufficient seervarisai and sridhana articles. At that time of marriage, it was stated that A1 is working as Officer in a ship. It is the second marriage for both of them. Right from the marriage day, she was ill-treated. He is also addicted to liquor. On 10th June 2017, she was assaulted by A1. But that was not condemned or questioned by A2 and A3. On 23/06/2017, the husband of A4 misbehaved with her throughout night and during the night, she was severely assaulted by A1. By pledging her jewels and drawing money from her bank account through ATM, they are lavishly spending the money. A4 also criminally intimidated her. When that was questioned on 20/07/2017, she was also assaulted in the presence of A2 and A3. After that, A1 by giving false of good life in future and received 30 sovereigns and pledged the same for discharging his debts. A4 also instigated A1 to harass and torture her. By torturing physically and mentally, on 30/07/2014 a letter was obtained by force, as if she is having illicit intimacy with another person. They also retained the pledged jewels which belongs to her. They have also dropped the money from her bank account leaving a small amount in her account. In December 2013 also, she was also severely assaulted and driven out of the house. Later, she was taken to the matrimonial home by her mother. Again, she was assaulted and admitted in the hospital. A2 and A3 demanded 50 sovereigns of jewels as additional dowry. On 30/12/2017, throughout night, she was abused, tortured, ill-treated and sexually assaulted also. In December 2013 also, she was also severely assaulted and driven out of the house. Later, she was taken to the matrimonial home by her mother. Again, she was assaulted and admitted in the hospital. A2 and A3 demanded 50 sovereigns of jewels as additional dowry. On 30/12/2017, throughout night, she was abused, tortured, ill-treated and sexually assaulted also. On 31/12/2017, A4 came to the house and she was driven out of the house. With these allegations, the case was registered in Crime No.3 of 2019 for the offences under sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002. 3. Seeking quashment of the same, A3, who is the sister of A1 has preferred this petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. During the course of argument, it has been brought to the notice of this court that charge sheet in CC No.146 of 2002 has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy. Even though final report was filed, when the interim stay was in force, finding that it is not extended thereafter. So the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was permitted to argue the matter on merits. 6. Now it is clear that final report has been filed and taken cognizance and the trial has also commenced. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is noway connected between the matrimonial issue between the husband and wife and she was married long back and settled in life with her husband in Chennai and she has been wrongly roped in the above said issue. The complaint was not properly enquired as per the procedure. Only bald allegation has been made against the petitioner. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preethi Guptha Vs. State of Jarkhand (2010(7)SCS 667 and other judgments, on this point. 8. So the question, which arises for consideration is whether in the light of the factual circumstances, it is appropriate on the part of this court to quash the criminal proceedings. 9. But the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has filed a counter stating that specific allegation has been made against this petitioner in the complaint itself. 8. So the question, which arises for consideration is whether in the light of the factual circumstances, it is appropriate on the part of this court to quash the criminal proceedings. 9. But the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has filed a counter stating that specific allegation has been made against this petitioner in the complaint itself. So, it ought to have been allowed to continue in its logical conclusion, since the final report has been filed. 10. Even though, we need not take into account the contents of the final report, but the story version that has been made in the FIR, it is seen that serious allegation has been levelled against this petitioner also. No doubt, the de-facto complainant has made crud allegation and indecent allegation against this petitioner in the FIR as if she also criminally intimidated her and instigated A1 to demand dowry and ill-treated her. Even though, such sort of allegation is a crud, but I am of the considered view that the trial must be taken in its logical conclusion. Whether this petitioner is involved in the above said occurrence or not is a matter for trial. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the de-facto complainant went to the extent of making allegation against the husband of the petitioner, as if he also ill-treated her mentally on a particular day. She has also stated that when this petitioner came to her house, she joined with other accused persons and was driven out of the house. So, these are the factual aspects, which cannot be gone into by this court at this stage. 12. Suffice to say that some crud allegation has been made against this petitioner. No doubt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preethi Guptha's case, as stated supra, has guided the stake-holders, starting from the police officials, Advocates, who appeared for the parties and the court should take care of the situation of a particular occurrence in the particular case and in general has also pointed out the tendency of the wife to implicate and rope all the in laws, whenever matrimonial issue comes within the spouse. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has warned all the take-holders to be careful, while handling the matrimonial issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has warned all the take-holders to be careful, while handling the matrimonial issue. No doubt, as mentioned above, such sort of tendency on the part of the de-facto complainant is also cannot be completely ruled out. Some disturbing allegations have been made as mentioned above as against the petitioner. 13. An attempt was made by this court to resolve the dispute amicably. For that purpose, the de-facto complainant's husband was also suo motu impleaded as 3rd respondent. But even though notice was served, he has not chosen to appear either in person or counsel. As mentioned earlier, in spite of the efforts made by this court, it could not be settled for unknown reasons. So, I find that the case must be proceeded to its logical conclusion. But however, since the petitioner is residing in Chennai along with her family, her personal appearance is dispensed with before the trial court. 14. In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. But however, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with on condition that within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner must appear before the trial court and file an undertaking affidavit that she will appear as and when required by the court, the attested photograph must be attached in the affidavit and she must ensure that she is properly represented by an Advocate. Since the crime of the year 2019, there shall be a direction to the trial Court namely the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Thoothukudi, to expedite the trial process and complete the same, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. With the above said direction and liberty, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.