CRL.O.P.No.

4373 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.09.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2508 & 2509 of 2020

Arunkumar
S/o.M.Panneerselvam ... Petitioner

Vs.
1. The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruvallur.
(Crime No.13 of 2019)

2. K.Vidhya @ Durga,
D/o.Krishnamurthy ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

praying to call for the records of the proceedings in C.C.No.415 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Tiruvallur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Saravana Vel

For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
For Mr.G.Desigu

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.415 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Tiruvallur,

thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC

as against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a sole

accused. Initially the second respondent herein lodged complainant on

20.06.2019 and the same was registered in Crime No.13 of 2019 for the

offences under Section 498A, 406 & 506(i) of IPC as against four accused

persons. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final

report for the offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC as against the

petitioner alone. The allegations are that the marriage took place between the

petitioner and the second respondent on 26.06.2015 and at that time of

marriage, the second respondent was presented 50 sovereign of jewels, 1½ Kg

silver articles and other house hold articles by her parents. After their marriage,

they lived in the mother-in-law's house only for 10 days and thereafter shifted

their residence to Kerala, since her husband was working at Kerala. Thereafter,

the family members of the petitioner harassed her and also demanded huge

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

dowry to live with her husband. In fact, they also hided the petitioner herein

and refused to live with the petitioner herein. On 07.08.2016 the defacto

complainant was driven out from the matrimonial house. Thereafter on

24.08.2016, the petitioner issued notice for seeking divorce to the second

respondent herein. All the accused persons are threatened her to give consent

for divorce between the petitioner and second respondent. Further alleged that

the gold jewels and also silver articles have been under custody of her in-laws

and demanded huge dowry to re-union between the petitioner and the second

respondent.

2.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted

that the entire allegations are completely false and the complaint itself lodged

after period of three years. Admittedly, the second respondent was driven out

from the matrimonial house on 07.08.2016, whereas the complaint lodged only

on 20.06.2019. On the date of receipt of the complaint itself, the first

respondent registered the case and on same day the investigating officer

examined almost all the witnesses shown in the list of witnesses. He further

submitted that in fact the in-laws of the petitioner filed a petition for not to

harass before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15937 of 2019 and this Court by an

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

order dated 21.06.2019, directed the first respondent to conduct enquiry and

take further action in accordance with law. Further observed that it is made

clear that if the first respondent finds that it is a matrimonial dispute, the first

respondent police shall relegate the parties to approach appropriate family

Court. It clearly shows that this Court by an order dated 21.06.2019 only

directed the first respondent to conduct enquiry. However the FIR has been

registered on 20.06.2019. If at all the FIR registered on that day, definitely the

respondent police would have represented before this Court that already FIR

has been registered. Therefore, the FIR itself pre-dated one and on the date

registration of FIR itself, all the list of witnesses have been examined by the

first respondent.

2.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further

submit that the petitioner issued notice to the second respondent on

24.08.2016, thereby called upon the second respondent that the petitioner no

longer wants to live with the second respondent at Thiruvallur and intended to

file petition for divorce. On receipt of the same, on 27.08.2016, the second

respondent's father along with one Rajakumar and others came to the

petitioner's house and assaulted the parents of the petitioner herein and also

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

abused them with filthy language, and threatened them with dire

consequences. Therefore, the petitioner's father lodged complaint before the

Inspector of Police, Thiruvallur and the same was registered in Crime No.671

of 2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(1) of IPC and it is

pending for investigation.

2.3. The petitioner filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty

in H.M.O.P.No.103 of 2016 against the second respondent herein on the file of

the Family Court, Tiruvallur. In fact, the matter was referred before Lok

Adalath for compromise on several occasions but, no negotiation had been

taken place and the second respondent did not come for any settlement.

Therefore, the matter was again referred back to Court for trial. Thereafter, she

filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.504 of 2017 on

the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. The second

respondent also filed a transfer petition in Tr.C.M.P.194 of 2017 to transfer the

divorce petition to the Family Court, Chennai. This Court by an order dated

09.06.2017 transferred the both O.Ps. filed by the petitioner as well as the

second respondent to the Subordinate Court, Tambaram and renumbered as

H.M.O.P.Nos.692 & 830 of 2017 respectively. In the said proceedings, there is

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

absolutely no whisper about the allegations made in FIR. In fact, the second

respondent also filed domestic violence case in D.V.C.No.30 of 2018 as

against the petitioner on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Allikulam. It

is also seen that in the restitution of conjugal rights petition, the trial Court

ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and the same was challenged by the

petitioner in C.R.P.No.3856 of 2018 and this Court by order dated 14.03.2019

reduced the same to Rs.7,000/- per month. While being so, the second

respondent suppressed the above events between them and only to harass the

petitioner, lodged the present complaint with false allegations on 20.06.2019.

Therefore, the entire proceedings are nothing but clear abuse of process of law.

2.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted

that no witness has been spoken about the role played by the petitioner and

there is no specific allegations are made out from the entire material produced

by the first respondent herein as against the petitioner to attract the offence

under Section 498A of IPC. There is no explanations from the second

respondent for the belated complaint. Admittedly she left the matrimonial

home on 07.08.2016 and lodged the present complaint only on 20.06.2019 that

too suppressing the entire facts with regard to filing of divorce petition and

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

restitution of conjugal rights petition and also domestic violence cases.

Therefore, it is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and only with an

intention to wreck vengeance as against the petitioner, this false complaint has

been lodged as against the petitioner. To support of his contention, he relied

upon the following judgments :-

i) (2009) 10 SCC 604 - Bhaskar Lal Sharma and anr Vs. Monica
ii) (2009) 14 SCC 466 - Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and
anr
iii) (2014) 13 SCC 567 - Swapnil and ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
iv) (2017) 9 SCC 413 - Varala Bharath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana
and anr.
v) (2018) 13 SCC 747 - Kartik chandra Majee and ors Vs. State of
Jarkhand and anr.
Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/defacto complainant filed counter and submitted that other

proceedings pending between the petitioner and the second respondent are not

impediment for her to lodge this complaint for the offences committed by the

petitioner herein. The offence under Section 498A of IPC is a continuous

offence and cause of action arose even immediately after the marriage between

the petitioner and the second respondent. The family members of the petitioner

harassed the second respondent by demanding huge dowry. Till the lodgement

of the complaint, there was harassment by the petitioner and his family
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

members demanding huge dowry from the second respondent and her family

members.

3.1. He further submitted that the witnesses categorically have spoken

about the overt-act of the petitioner in respect of harassment and also demand

of huge dowry. The observation Mahazar witnesses have spoken about the

overtact and also independent witnesses viz., the neighbours have also spoken

about the overtact of the petitioner herein to attract the offence under Sections

498A and 406 of IPC. He further submitted that during the marriage, her

parents presented 50 sovereign of gold and 1½ Kg of silver articles. Her

husband was working as software engineer in Kerala and therefore the second

respondent stayed along with the petitioner at Kerala. During the month of

March, 2016, when they came to Chennai, the petitioner left the second

respondent in her parents house stating that he would take her back after

shifting the residence at Kerala. Thereafter, when the parents of the second

respondent had taken her to the house of the petitioner at Thiruvallur, the

second respondent was not even permitted to enter into the house, and the

parents of the petitioner abused them with filthy language and also threatened

them only after receiving the huge dowry, they will allow the second

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 8 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

respondent to live with her husband. The petitioner and her family members

continuously harassed the second respondent to the core and demanded huge

sum of dowry.

3.2. He further submitted that the second respondent is also taking

steps to impleade the parents of the petitioner in the present proceedings. The

grounds raised by the petitioner are factually disputed and it cannot be

considered by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further the evidences

and materials cannot be appreciated by this Court that too under the quash

petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He also relied upon the judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:-

i) Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 - Devendra Prasad Singh

Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
ii) Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 -Central Bureau of
Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna.
iii) Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019 - M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr.
Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 9 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the

complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a

case in Crime No.13 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section

498(A), 406 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the four accused persons, in which

the petitioner is arrayed as A1. On the date of registration of FIR, the first

respondent recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 8, 14, 16. Other witnesses

have been examined on the next day viz., 21.06.2019. Thereafter the first

respondent filed final report only as against the petitioner, after filing alteration

report thereby deleting the other accused persons 2 to 4 on 19.10.2019 and

filed final report. The same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in

C.C.No.415 of 2019 and it is pending.

4.1. He further submitted that there are specific allegations and

overtact as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498(A) and

406 of IPC. The offence under Section 498A of IPC is a continuous offence

and as such though the second respondent lodged complaint on 20.06.2019,

there were continuous harassment by the petitioner herein by demanding huge

dowry. He further submitted that the jewels and silver articles, which were

presented in her marriage also under the custody of the petitioner and his

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 10 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

family members. Therefore the offence under Section 406 of IPC is also clearly

attracted as against the petitioner and all the points raised by the petitioner

herein are mixed questions of fact and it cannot be considered here. Therefore,

he sought for dismissal of this petition.

5. Heard Mr.J.Saravanavel, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the first respondent.

6. The petitioner is a sole accused. On the complaint lodged by the

second respondent on 20.06.2019, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime

No.13 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(1)

of IPC as against four accused persons in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1.

The first respondent after completion of investigation, filed final report on

19.10.2019 thereby deleting the accused A2 to A3 and filed the charge sheet as

against the petitioner alone for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 of

IPC.

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 11 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was married with the second respondent

on 20.06.2015 and after their marriage they stayed at Kerala, since the

petitioner was employed at Kerala. Thereafter, the second respondent left the

matrimonial home 07.08.2016 for the reason that the petitioner and his family

members harassed the second respondent and also demanded huge dowry.

Thereafter the parents of the second respondent had threatened the petitioner's

father over telephone as such, the petitioner's father lodged complaint before

the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Thiruvallur, and on receipt of the

same the petitioner's father was issued CSR on 07.08.2016.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner caused legal notice dated 25.08.2016 to

the second respondent stating that the second respondent harassed the

petitioner and also every day there was a threat by the second respondent

through police. Therefore, he did not want to live with the second respondent

and call upon the second respondent that longer wanted to live with her and

intended to file a petition for divorce. On receipt of the same, the second

respondent did not send any reply to the petitioner. In fact on 27.08.2016, the

petitioner's father lodged complaint alleging that the second respondent and

one Rajkumar had come to the petitioner's house and assaulted the parents' and

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 12 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

also threatened them with dire consequences. Therefore, the petitioner's father

lodged complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.671 of 2016 for the

offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC as against the second

respondent's father and one Rajkumar and it is pending for investigation.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition for divorce on the ground

of cruelty in H.M.O.P.No.103 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court,

Tiruvallur. There was a mediation between the petitioner and the second

respondent and all are went to vain. Further, the second respondent filed a

petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.504 of 2017 on the

file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. The second respondent also

filed a transfer petition in Tr.C.M.P.194 of 2017 to transfer the divorce petition

to the Family Court, Chennai. The petitioner also filed a transfer petition in

Tr.C.M.P.No.363 of 2017 to transfer the restitution of conjugal rights petition

to the Family Court, Tiruvallur. This Court considered both the transfer

petitions and by an order dated 09.06.2017 transferred both the petitions filed

by the petitioner as well as the second respondent to the Subordinate Court,

Tambaram, and both petitions are pending for trial.

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 13 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

10. The second respondent also filed a complaint under the Domestic

Violence Act in D.V.C.No.30 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Mahila

Court, Allikulam, Chennai and it is pending for trial. In fact, an interim

maintenance was ordered as against the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-

to the second respondent and as against which, the petitioner filed a Civil

Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3856 of 2018 and this Court by an order dated

14.03.2019, reduced the monthly maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,000/-.

11. On perusal of the records, it shows that the petitioner's parents

filed a petition before this Court for direction directing the first respondent not

to harass, in Crl.O.P.No.15937 of 2019. This Court by an order dated

21.06.2019, directed the first respondent to conduct an enquiry and take

further action in accordance with law. This Court further observed that if the

first respondent finds that it is a matrimonial dispute, the first respondent

police shall relegate the parties to approach the appropriate family Court. It is

unfortunate to state that the first respondent did not represent anything before

this Court about the registration of FIR as against the petitioner herein in

Crime No.13 of 2019 on 20.06.2019. In fact, the first respondent have

examined and recorded the statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., almost

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 14 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

from all the witnesses on 21.06.2019. The first respondent completed the

investigation and filed final report on 19.10.2019. It would clearly show that in

a single day, the first respondent registered the FIR and also examined all the

list of witnesses.

12. It is also seen from the statements, all are stereo type and in fact

the neighbours have stated that there was no dowry harassment. In fact, the

pendency of the proceeding between the petitioner and the second respondent

are not at all considered by the first respondent and since the second

respondent and her supporting evidences did not even whisper about those

proceedings. It is settled law that the offence under Section 498A is a

continuous offence. But in this case on hand, there is no explanation for the

delay in lodgement of complaint by the second respondent. Admittedly, she left

the matrimonial home on 07.08.2016. Thereafter there are so many

proceedings, including the domestic violence complaint between the petitioner

and the second respondent. All the matters are now pending for trial before the

respective Courts. The second respondent suppressing all those facts and

lodged complaint without any date of occurrence, place of occurrence and

without any specific overtact as against the petitioner. The first respondent

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 15 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

registered the case on the receipt of complaint itself without conducting any

enquriy on 20.06.2019 and on the same day the first respondent recorded the

statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., from all the witnesses expect two

witness. This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India repeatedly held

that in the matter related to the family Court offences, the police official has to

conduct preliminary enquiry and only thereafter if any cognizable offence is

made out can register the case. In the case on hand, on the same day,

everything has been done and filed final report. Fortunately, the first

respondent deleted other accused persons viz., the parents and relatives of the

petitioner herein from the charge sheet.

13. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 in the case of

Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and anr, in which the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India held as follows :-

"28. The said section contains an

explanation, which defines "cruelty" as
understood under Section 498A IPC. In order to
understand the meaning of the expression `cruelty'
as envisaged under Section 498A, there must be
such a conduct on the part of the husband or
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 16 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

relatives of the husband of woman which is of

such a nature as to cause the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health whether mental or physical of the
woman.
29. When we examine the facts of the
present case particularly the FIR and the charge
sheet we find that there is no such allegation
either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out
a prima facie case as narrated under explanation
(a). There is no allegation that there is any such
conduct on the part of the appellant which could
be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a
nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2
to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her
life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under
explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all
mentioned either in FIR or in charge sheet and in
absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore,
explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is
clearly not attracted in the present case.
30. We, therefore, now proceed to examine
as to whether the case would fall under
explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC
constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in
explanation (b). In order to constitute cruelty

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 17 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

under the said provision there has to be

harassment of the woman with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or a case is to be made out to the effect
that there is a failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand. When the allegation
made in the FIR and charge sheet is examined in
the present case in the light of the aforesaid
provision, we find that no prima facie case even
under the aforesaid provision is made out to
attract a case of cruelty.
31. The marriage between the appellant and
Respondent No. 2 was performed on 23.10.1997
when it is alleged that Rs. 5 lakhs was given by the
parents of Respondent No. 2 to the family of
appellant as dowry. The FIR was filed in the
month of April, 2002 and in the said FIR there is
no allegation that subsequent thereto any
harassment was made by the appellant with a view
to coercing her or any person related to
Respondent No. 2 to meet any unlawful demand or
any property. In that view of the matter neither
explanation (a) nor explanation (b) of Section
498 A of IPC is attracted in the present case.

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 18 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

32. It is crystal clear that neither in the FIR

nor in the charge sheet there is any ingredient
of Section 498A IPC, which could prima facie
constitute a case of cruelty as defined in that
Section. It is thus established that on a reading of
the FIR as also the charge sheet filed against the
appellant no case under Section 498A is made out
on the face of the record, and therefore, both the
FIR as also the charge sheet are liable to be
quashed in exercise of the powers under Section
482 of the CrPC. Clearly, the High Court failed to
appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and
therefore, committed an error on the face of the
record."

14. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India reported in (2014) 13 SCC 567 in the case of Swapnil and ors Vs. State

of Madhya Pradesh, as follows :-

“11. The second respondent has been living

separately since April, 2011 and hence, there is no
question of any beating by the appellants as
alleged by her. The relationship having got
strained ever since April, 2011, even application
for restitution of conjugal rights having been

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 19 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second

respondent was not interested to live together, it is
difficult to believe that there is still a demand for
dowry on 30.04.2012 coupled with criminal
intimidation. The allegations are vague and bereft
of the details as to the place and the time of the
incident. We had called for the records and have
gone through the same. The materials before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore
are not sufficient to form an opinion that there is
ground for presuming that the accused appellants
have committed the offence under the charged
Sections. The Additional Sessions Court and the
High Court missed these crucial points while
considering the petition filed by the appellants
under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Cr.PC
respectively. The veiled object behind the lame
prosecution is apparently to harass the appellants.
We are, hence, of the view that the impugned
prosecution is wholly unfounded."

15. In another judgment reported in (2017) 9 SCC 413 in the case of

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana and anr, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India held as follows:-

“8. We are conscious of the fact

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 20 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a

view to punish the husband or any of his relatives,
who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or
her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of
dowry. Keeping the afore-mentioned object in
mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not
find any allegation of subjecting the complainant
to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of
IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any
willful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
complainant. So also, there is nothing on record
to show that there was a demand of dowry by the
appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to
the marriage, during the marriage or after the
marriage. The record also does not disclose
anywhere that the husband of the complainant
acted, with a view to coerce her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any
property or valuable security.
9. The ingredients of criminal breach of
trust are also not forthcoming from the records as
against the appellants. The allegations contained
in the complaint and the charge sheet do not

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 21 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust,

as contained in Section 405 of the I.P.C. In view of
the blurred allegations, and as we find that the
complainant is only citing the incidents of
unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose
will be served in continuing the prosecution
against the appellants. This is a case where there
is a total absence of allegations for the offences
punishable under Section 498A and Section
406 of the I.P.C. In the matter on hand, the
allegations made in the First Information Report
as well as the material collected during the
investigation, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima
facie constitute the offences punishable
under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC against
the accused/appellants. So also the
uncontroverted allegations found against the
appellants do not disclose the commission of the
offence alleged and make out a case against the
accused. The proceedings initiated against the
appellants are liable to be quashed.”
In the above cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the word

"cruelty" has envisage under Section 498A of IPC there must be such a

conduct on the part of the husband or relatives of the husband of woman which

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 22 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

is of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the

woman.

16. In the case on hand, there is no such allegations in the FIR as well

as the statement of the witnesses. The ingredients to constitute the offence

under explanation A of 498 of IPC are not at all mentioned in the FIR and also

in the statement of the witnesses. When the absence there of, no offence is

made out under Section 498A of IPC as against the petitioner. Insofar as the

offence under Section 406 of IPC is concerned the allegation made in the FIR

as well as the statements do not satisfy the definition of the criminal breach of

trust as contained in Section 405 of IPC. It is relevant to extract the offence

under Sections 405 of IPC as follows :-

"405. Criminal breach of trust —

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted
with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts
to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses
or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which
such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 23 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

contract, express or implied, which he has made

touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully
suffers any other person so to do, commits
"criminal breach of trust".
406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust —
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both."
The entire allegations are bald and vague and no ingredient is there to attract

the offence under Section 406 of IPC.

17. On perusal of the petition filed by the second respondent in

H.M.O.P.No.504 of 2017 for restitution of conjugal rights, she stated that only

because of the parents of the petitioner herein, there was misunderstanding

between them. She further stated that there is no difference of opinion

whatsoever between the petitioner and the second respondent and their

separation was not on account of them and it is because of her in-laws.

Therefore the present impugned proceeding is nothing but after thought and it

is clear abuse of process of law. After filing the divorce petition, restitution of

conjugal rights petition and also the domestic violence complaint, the present

complaint has been lodged by the second respondent. Therefore it is nothing

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 24 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

but only to wreck vengeance as against the petitioner, the complaint has been

lodged by the second respondent.

18. In this regard it is relevant to relay upon the judgment reported in

(1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has listed out the following category of case in which

the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the

High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

"102..................
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with malafide and/or where
the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."

19. Therefore the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed and it

cannot be sustained, since no offence is made out as against the petitioner as

alleged by the prosecution. There is absolutely no ingredient to prove the

charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, as

against the petitioner. The allegations made in the final report as well as the

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 25 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

materials collected during the investigation, even if they are taken their face

value, the acceptability of their entirety do not constitute the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC as against the petitioner

herein. Therefore, there is absolutely no possibility of conviction to the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. Therefore, the

petitioner need not go for ordeal of trial. As such the judgments cited by the

learned counsel for the second respondent are not helpful to the case of the

second respondent.

20. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the

proceeding in C.C.No.415 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate-1, Tiruvallur, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

30.09.2020
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order

rts

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 26 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-1,

Tiruvallur.

2. The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,
Tiruvallur.

3. The Public Prosecutor

Madras High Court,
Chennai.

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 27 of 28
 CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts

CRL.O.P.No.4373 of 2020 and

Crl.M.P.Nos.2508 & 2509 of 2020

30.09.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 28 of 28