Madras High Court
Kuttimani Anbazhagan vs / on 5 August, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 29.07.2022 Pronounced on : 05.08.2022
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Criminal Original Petition Nos.920 & 924 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
Crl.O.P.No.920 of 2019:-
1. Kuttimani Anbazhagan,
S/o.Anbazhagan.
2. Devika Rani,
W/o.Anbazhagan.
Both Permanent residing at:
No.229, New No.167, Giri Amman Koil Street,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004.
Presently Residing at:
No.37W, 41st Street, First Floor,
Bayonne, New Jersey – 07002.
United States of America ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2
/versus/
1. State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
W-35, All Women Police Station,
Chennai – 600 045.
(Crime No.17/2017).
_____________
Page No.1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
2. Abirami Chakravarthi, M/A 30 years,
W/o.Kuttimani,
No.3, Tamil Poonga Street, Gragalaya Apartments,
Chennai – 600 045. ... Respondents/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for records in C.C.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram
Court and quash the same and pass order.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel, for
Mr.A.Nagarajan.
For R1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.J.Ravikumar
Crl.O.P.No.924 of 2019:-
Arun Sathya,
S/o.Anbazhagan,
No.229, New No.167, Giri Amman Koil Street,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004.
Presently residing at:
Bahrain Pipes B.S.C.
P.O.Box 530 Manama,
Kingdom of Bahrain. ... Petitioners/Accused 3
/versus/
1. State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
W-35, All Women Police Station,
Chennai – 600 045.
2. Abirami Chakravarthi, M/A 30 years,
_____________
Page No.2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
W/o.Kuttimani,
No.3, Tamil Poonga Street, Gragalaya Apartments,
Chennai – 600 045. ... Respondents/defacto Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for records in C.C.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram
Court and quash the same and pass order.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Nagarajan, for
Mr.S.Arockiaraj.
For R1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.J.Ravikumar
COMMON ORDER
These two Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash the case in C.C.No.91 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram.
2. Based on the complaint given by Abirami Chakravathi the W-35, All Woman Police Station, West Tambaram registered the case in Crime No.17 of 2017 on 24.07.2017 against Kuttimani (A1), Devika Rani (A2) and Arun Sathya (A3).
_____________ Page No.3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
3. According to the complaint given by Abirami Chakravarthi, on 24.01.2016 she married Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1). Before marriage, Devika Rani (A2), the mother of Kuttimani Anbazhagan demanded more gold jewels, but accepted the marriage knowing that she is working in U.S and have a valuable property in her name at Urapakkam. The marriage was solemnised at Coimbatore. After marriage, Abirami Chakravarthi and her husband came to Chennai. Her Husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law insisted her to register the Urapakkam property in their name or sell it and give the money to them. Her parents refused. Thereafter, she and her husband went to U.S.A. When Abirami Chakravarthi/defacto complainant was at U.S.A with her husband, the mother-in- law (Devika Rani) used to call her son (Kuttimani Anbazhagan) and keep on enquiring about the gold jewels and property at Urapakkam. She triggered Kuttimani Anbazhagan to buy house at U.S.A, by selling the property at Urapakkam. Meanwhile, Abirami came to know about the illicit relationship of her husband with a girl in U.S.A. She saw photographs and videos of her husband with another lady in his laptop. When she got conceived, her husband did not allow her mother to come to U.S.A to look after her. Instead, her mother-in-law _____________ Page No.4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 came to U.S.A and stayed with her. Before coming to USA, her mother-in-law went to her parents’ house and demanded money and to surrender the property document. Since they came to know about the illicit relationship of her husband her parents refused. After delivery, she was not able to work as usual. Her mother-in-law tortured her physically, mentally and forced her to do all household work. She was not allowed to talk with her parents. She was locked in a small room for several hours. Her husband and mother-in-law abused her and tortured her physically. They both hit her, dragged her, picked her hair and refused to take her to hospital. They threatened not to inform about this to Police. On coming to know about the cruelty she is facing in USA, her mother came to U.S.A to rescue her. Her husband and mother-in-law got Temporary Restrain Order from U.S. Authority, blocked her credit card and stopped her from using home Internet. She sold all her jewels for her living in USA her husband left the home and she was not aware of the husband’s whereabouts. Her father, then came to USA and with great difficulty, her parents helped her to come out of the Temporary Order of restrain. Her husband refused to give her passport and did not permit to take custody of baby out of U.S. She came from USA along with her parents leaving her child with her husband and sought action against her husband Kuttimani (A1), _____________ Page No.5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 mother-in-law Devika Rani (A2) and brother-in-law Arun Sathya (A3).
4. The First Respondent Police completed the investigation and filed final report which has been taken on the file in C.C.No.91 of 2018 against these petitioners for offences under Sections 498 (A), 406 and 506(i) of I.P.C.
5. To quash the said case, Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) and Devika Rani (A2) have jointly filed Crl.O.P.No.920 of 2019 and Arun Sathya (A3) has filed Crl.O.P.No.924 of 2019.
6. According to the petitioners, the final report is out come of bias and absurd investigation. It has been laid hurriedly without proper investigation contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. The 1st accused/Kuttimani Anbazhagan is a Green Card Holder residing at U.S and employed at USA since 2009. The defacto complainant is the resident of U.S since 2014. The betrothal between them held on 21.08.2015 and marriage was solemnised on 24.01.2016 at Coimbatore. One week after marriage _____________ Page No.6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 they both left to USA on 31.01.2016.
8. The substantial allegations in the final report against these petitioners A1 & A2 are alleged to have occurred at U.S or alleged to have occurred through phone and e-mails. It is a false allegation that there was demand for dowry before marriage and subsequently. Kuttimani (A1) is well settled in U.S.A and there was no necessity to demand dowry. Ever since, they landed in U.S on 31.01.2021, compatibility issue cropped up and Abirami was forcing the 1st accused to send money to her parents in India. She continued to have telephonic conversation with her former co-worker by name Loganathan Subramanian. The timing of phone calls from the said person at odd hours at night and Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) is away from home. This arose suspicion and when Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) enquired the defacto complainant, she started quarrelling and abused him. To cover up her extra martial affairs, she has made an allegation as if, Kuttimani (A1) is having affair with another lady. In fact, the said lady came to be known during the matrimonial search and due to mismatch of horoscope, their marriage could not take place. Abirami picked up the old picture from his laptop and has made undue frivolous allegation.
_____________ Page No.7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
9. Within few months of the marriage, the defacto complainant lost her job in U.S and therefore, to validate her visa, he spend around Rs.7500 US dollars. However, the defacto complainant was not compatible, continued to abuse him and pick quarrel. She also physically attacked him in November 2016 with glass perfume bottle on his head. In March 2017, she again attacked him violently. On 06.05.2017, she picked wordy quarrel with Devika Rani, who visited USA to see her grand child. She abused and physically assaulted the petitioner (A1) in presence of her mother, who was also present at that time. Since the assault was intolerable the matter was reported to the Local police at Bayonne, U.S.
10. The defacto complainant gave a counter complaint to Hudson, US alleging that the Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) committed assault purposely, knowingly and caused bodily injury specifically by hitting her, pushing her against her wall, abused her, chopped her, hit her in the right leg and did also locked her in a small room and threatened her not to call police and report the act of physical assault, since it will affect his citizenship status. _____________ Page No.8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
11. On seeing the injuries on Kuttimani (A1), Temporary Restraining Order (restraining the mother of the defacto complainant from meeting the petitioners and the defacto complainant) was passed. The petitioners, in order to accommodate the defacto complainant and her mother, allowed them to stay in his house and they stayed separately honouring the order of Hudson Court, U.S.
12. Both the complaints by consent were later dismissed as withdrawn to facilitate the DFC and her mother to leave USA. After due enquiry, the U.S Authorities on 28.06.2017 handed over the custody of the child to the Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1). Thereafter defacto complainant, left U.S along with her parents. After come down to India suppressing all these facts, a complaint came to be filed on 24.07.2017 and on the same day, case was registered. In two days i.e., 25.07.2017 and 26.07.2017 the statement of witnesses were recorded but after one year the final report filed.
13. Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C statement of the defacto complainant, _____________ Page No.9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 her father and mother speaks the incidents which took place at U.S.A and not in India. Those incidents have already been enquired by the U.S Police and Temporary Restraining order was passed on 06.05.2017 and same was dismissed by Court on 28.06.2017. While the evidence very clearly show that the defacto complainant and Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) lived together only for a week in India and thereafter gone to U.S and during that one week, it is alleged that, there was demand of money and force to sell the property in Urapakkam, which stood in the name of the defacto complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that, the property at Urapakkam was sold and sale proceeds was taken away by her husband or her in-laws.
14. In support of the complaint averments, police has relied upon the statement of one Boopathi, aged 23 years, who is the watchman under the defacto complainant's father and a servant maid working in her house. The other two witnesses are security Guards working in the Apartment opposite to the defacto complainant's parent house. The statement of all these witnesses been recorded on next two days after registering the complaint i.e., 25.07.2017 and 26.07.2017.
15. The complaint against A3 who is the brother of Kuttimani is total _____________ Page No.10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 abuse of law. At the time of marriage, A3 was working in India and never demanded anything from the defacto complainant or her parents.
16. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that malicious complaint with all improbability has been taken on the file by the Judicial Magistrate, purely based on the statements of these interested witnesses, who have no competence to speak about the events took place at U.S.A. Since, it is a malicious prosecution initiated to settle score against the husband and his relatives. The complaint given at Chennai, when no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of West Tambaram Police.
17. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that it is a serious case of dowry harassment and cruelty caused to the defacto complainant by the petitioners herein both at Chennai and U.S. The cruelty committed by Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) recorded by the Police at U.S and Temporary Restrain Order was passed against him and his mother Devika Rani.
18. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme _____________ Page No.11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 Court in Rupali Devi -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in MANU/SC/0499/2019. Since the offence has been committed at several locations including West Tambaram, the complaint taken up for investigation by the respondent police and same is perfectly in accordance with law. Further, the offence is a continuous offence of causing cruelty by depriving the defacto complainant's right of care and custody of child. She was forcibly driven out from U.S.A. by the accused/petitioners 1 & 2.
19. Arun Sathya (A3) in Crl.O.P.No.924 of 2019, who is the brother of the 1st accused, though employed in Bahrain, U.S, over phone and directly had been pressurising the father of the defacto complainant to give money and after due investigation final report filed including him as A3. Since sufficient evidence is available to try the accused, it is not a case to quash summarily. The accused persons are bound to submit themselves for trial and prove their innocence.
20. Perused the complaint and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.
21. In Rupali Devi case cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has _____________ Page No.12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 observed that the word “cruelty” explained in Section 498-A of I.P.C., been amplified as below:-
“14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "The intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage (Abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty" appearing in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal _____________ Page No.13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place.”
22. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Defacto complainant submitted that, Section 188 of Cr.P.C. defines “Offence committed outside India” any offence committed outside of India by citizen of India, the previous sanction of the Central Government is required. In this case, series of offence has been committed before marriage and after marriage in India and in U.S. It is a continuous cause of action. Some of the offences were committed in India. Being intra territorial offences, there is no legal impediment to investigate and conduct the trial. Therefore, Learned Counsel submit that it is not a complaint which could be quashed by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for this reason.
23. This Court, after giving anxious consideration to the rival submissions and on reading the complaint and 161 (3) of Cr.P.C., the statements _____________ Page No.14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 recorded in the course of investigation finds though, it is contended in the complaint that money was transferred to the account of Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) by the defacto complainant, no bank statement has been produced during the course of investigation except the salary particulars of the defacto complainant. A sum of Rs. 1 Lakh transferred to A1 is admitted and it is explained that this money was transferred before marriage for bride groom dress, as per the customary practise. The travel particulars to show the defacto complainant's mother went to U.S.A on 30.04.2017 and her father went to U.S on 13.05.2017 but there was no material to show that there was any pressure on them to give money or to sell any property on that score, they went to U.S. In the matrimonial dispute, the statement of watchman, servant-maid and security Guard all employed and committed to the defacto complainant family alone is relied by the prosecution and they are not competent to say anything about events happened at USA. Even according to the defacto complainant, only for a week the defacto complainant and Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) stayed in India and in that one week, they gone to honeymoon trip and left to U.S on 31.01.2016. The investigation has not collected anything to indicate there was demand of dowry or any cruelty in this one week. _____________ Page No.15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019
24. To corroborate the statements of the watchman, maid-servants and security persons as well as the family members of the defacto complainant regarding the demand to sell Urapakkam property, the prosecution has not collected evidence to show that the defacto complainant had any property at Urapakkam. Whether the Urapakkam property has been sold or any attempt made to sell on the request or pressure of the accused persons. Merely a ipse dixit statement will not be sufficient to prosecute when not an iota of material collected during the course of investigation in this connection. Particularly the haste in registering the complaint and investigation completed within two days.
25. As pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners the complaint was registered on 24.07.2017. The statement of witnesses recorded on 25.07.2017 & 26.07.2017. No further investigation is done and final report filed with the statements recorded from the family members, watchman, maid servant and security. The irony in the complaint is that, the petitioner/Arun Sathya in Crl.O.P.No.924 of 2019, the brother of Kuttimani Anbazhagan also been roped as accused, who had been working in Bahrain at the relevant point of time. Certain communications from the defacto complainant to Bahrain Embassy through e-mail _____________ Page No.16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 which was placed before this Court by these petitioners which indicates that the defacto complainant had intimated the Officials in Bahrain, about the complaints against Arun Sathya (A3) in India and brought him under their scanner, which led to losing his job. The allegation against Arun Sathya (A3), is that he demanded the property documents from the parents of defacto complainant joining hands with Kuttimani Anbazhagan (A1) & Devika Rani (A2), it does not get probabilise in view of the fact that petitioner Arun Sathya (A3) employed in Bahrain and living with his family.
26. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Kuttimani Anbazhagan has already initiated proceedings for divorce in Indian Court. The defacto complainant has filed petition for custody of the minor child, who is an U.S citizen and presently in U.S. From the nature of the complaint and the haste manner in which investigation completed within 72 hours of receiving the complaint clearly show that some extraneous force involved in this case to file final report with truncated information.
27. The judgments cited on either side are all based on the facts of the those particular case. We cannot drawn parallel to any of those cases to the case in _____________ Page No.17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 hand, since this case has an unique fact that hardly one week the spouses stayed in India after marriage. The defacto complainant alone has returned to India, after 1½ years and has given this complaint alleging about the occurrence took place at U.S.A but suppressing the proceedings initiated by them before U.S.A Law Enforcing Agency at U.S.A and its outcome. Certain incident which alleged to have been occurred in India before they left India and in her absence are also highly improbable and does not carry any ingredients to prosecute against these petitioners for offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 506(i) of I.P.C.
28. In the documents filed along with the complaint, there is no evidence of cruelty or entrust of property or intimidation occurred in India. For these offences, only based on the statements, the petitioners cannot be forced to face trial, in the absence of prima facie evidence. The complaint lodged after more than one year of joint living in abroad and for the events occurred in abroad is abuse of process of law. Particularly, when for the events whatever alleged to have happened at USA, the competent authority of that Country has applied the law of that land and had dealt the matter as per their law. The defacto complainant cannot for the same cause of action initiate a criminal proceedings in India for the _____________ Page No.18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 incident occurred in the abroad and already dealt as per the law of the land were the crime alleged to have taken place.
29. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are Allowed. The complaint in C.C.No.91 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram are liable to be quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.08.2022
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
bsm
Copy to:-
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.
2. The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police Station, Chennai – 600 045.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
_____________ Page No.19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.920 & 924 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.600, 604, 4765 & 4767 of 2019 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm Pre-delivery common order made in Crl.O.P.Nos.920 & 924 of 2019 05.08.2022 _____________ Page No.20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis