Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Whether the proceedings before the III Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Tirupathi are liable to be quashed?

5. To what result?

11. The III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. on the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Tirupathi (Rural) in Cr. No. 177 of 1998 on the file of Alipiri Police Station under Section 190 (b) Cr. P.C. In the said report it is alleged that the marriage between A-l and the de facto complainant was celebrated at Tiruchanur on 12-8-1998 and on demand by A-1 and his relatives, the mother of de facto complainant gave cash of Rs. 10,000/- and 13 sovereigns of gold towards dowry and that after the marriage A-1 and the de facto complainant along with their relatives went to Chennai to the house of A-1 to lead matrimonial life and immediately after reaching the house of A-1, all the accused started illtreating and harassing the de facto complainant stating that the dowry given to them is very less and further demanded to get additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and that the de facto complainant unable to bear the harassment and ill-treatment contacted her mother by phone and when her mother went to the house of A-l at Chennai to pacify the issue, A-l to A-8 did not agree to receive the de facto complainant unless she brought additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and further the accused beat the de facto complainant in the presence of her mother and that observing all those happenings, the mother of the de facto complainant went to Tirumangalam Police Station and further reported the matter to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai but they did not take any action. It is further alleged that A-l to A-8 decided to get rid of the de facto complainant from the house one way or the other, conspired together threatened with dire consequences by putting her in fear of death, obtained signatures on several papers and later used those papers by filling the contents as they like through advocate and filed the same in the police station and also in the High Court of Madras and basing on the manipulated documents obtained directions from the High Court of Madras and basing on the orders of the High Court at Chennai, the de facto complainant was sent back to Tirupathi to the custody of her uncle and thus A-l to A-8 harassed physically and mentally by putting the de facto complainant in fear of death and succeeded in sending her out from the house of A-1 and damaged the matrimonial life of the de facto complainant mercilessly and that after reaching Tirupathi the de facto complainant narrated to her mother and also to her kith and kin as to what happened at her in-law's house during her stay and with the advise of her mother and relatives she gave report in Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi and it was registered as Cr. No. 177 of 1998 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and investigated into and that after investigation, the investigating officer basing on the complaint and orders of the High Court of Chennai, the case was referred as mistake of fact on 22-1-1999. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant and her mother waited for some time and as they did not get any justice either from Tamil Nadu Government or from Alipiri Police, approached higher officials for justice and that after considering the difficult condition of the de facto complainant, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi issued instructions on 18-5-2000 to reopen the case for further investigation and that as the case was not closed by the Magistrate, with the permission of the Court the further investigation was started and that during the further investigation, the Inspector of Police, Tirupathi (Rural) secured the presence of the de facto complainant and her witnesses (L. Ws. 1 to 8) and got the statements of L. Ws. 1 and 2 recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 13-10-2000 and that the investigation revealed that A-1 to A-8 being husband of de facto complainant and relatives subjected her physically and mentally and also harassed her demanding further dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and thereby rendered themselves liable for punishment under Section 498-A I.P.C.