Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3227 (MAD)

N. Selvi v. Inspector of Police, Coimbatore

2022-09-09

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent police against them.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint registered on 15.02.2018 under Section 498A, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners, who are the sisters-in-law of the de facto complainant. 2. The complaint was filed by the de facto complainant against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law alleging that the marriage between the de facto complainant and the first accused was solemnized on 11.06.2009. At the time of marriage, besides a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- cash and house hold articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-, 50 Soverign of gold jewels, diamond necklace, diamond stud and diamond ring along with bracelets were given as seedhana. While so, for the development of business of the first accused, the accused persons were pressurizing the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry. The petitioners herein who are sister of the first accused ill-advised him to leave the de facto complainant at her maternal home, so that she will bring additional dowry, if she wants to live with her husband/first accused. 3. The petitioners are before this Court to quash the said complaint on the ground that they are married sisters of the first accused living far away from the matrimonial home of the de facto complainant. They never interfered in the family affairs of the de facto complainant and the first accused, and also they never ill-advised the first accused to leave the de facto complainant at her maternal home. 4. This Court on 24.01.2019, when the quash petition came up for admission being satisfied that there is prima facie case has been made out against these petitioners, stay of investigation, in Crime No.3 of 2018 pending disposal of criminal original petition insofar as these petitioners are concerned, was granted. 5. However, it is now reported by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the respondent-police had proceeded with the investigation and had filed final report against all the five accused including these two petitioners. 6. 5. However, it is now reported by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the respondent-police had proceeded with the investigation and had filed final report against all the five accused including these two petitioners. 6. When this was brought to the notice of this Court on 30.03.2022, this Court taking note of the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the final report was filed in the year 2018 before the Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, much prior to the grant of stay, remarks from the concerned learned Magistrate was called. 7. Pursuant to the direction, the learned Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, has informed that the final report was filed on 28.08.2019 in Crime No.3 of 2018 and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.1841 of 2019 under Section 498A, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and when summons was issued to the accused persons, they appeared and filed a memo stating that the Hon'ble High Court has granted stay. In view of the said memo, the case is adjourned from time to time without any further progress. 8. This Court finds that it is a clear case of disobedience of the Court order. By antedating the final report, the first respondent police try to justify their act of disobedience. Even if the final report was prepared prior to the stay order, the first respondent should not have presented the final report to the Court. This kind of disobedience being often come to the notice of this Court. The Director General of Police is requested to take note of this lapse and instruct his subordinates to honour the Court order if they really have any care or concern for Rule of law. 9. As far as the merits of this quash petition is concerned, this Court finds that except oral allegations of the de facto complainant for implicating these petitioners as if they abetted her husband to dessert her, there is no sufficient material evidence collected by the respondentpolice to prosecute these petitioners. 10. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The case as against the accused persons 4 and 5, who are the petitioners herein is quashed, permitting the first respondent police to proceed with the other three accused. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.