Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.96 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel Kanyakumari District,

2.The petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 7 in C.C.No. 96 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. This calender case is arising out of a complaint lodged by the second respondent as against her husband and other in laws that their marriage with the first accused Christopher was solemnised on 10.07.2013. At that time of marriage, her parents gave 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/-. After the marriage the second respondent/ defacto complainant was living with the first accused Christopher and her mother in-law Rose Mary at Pattukottai in the matrimonial house.

3.The learned Counsel further submits that it is alleged that these accused and other in-laws have also demanded a sum of Rupees forty lakh and therefore she lodged a complaint as against all the accused before the first respondent Police on 06.11.2015 and the same was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis registered in Crime No.39 of 2015 as against these petitioners and two others for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) IPC and Sections 4 the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. In conclusion of the investigation, the respondent Police filed a final report under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as against accused Nos.1 and 2, under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as against accused Nos.3 and 4 and under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC as against accused No.5, and under Section 498(A) IPC as against accused Nos.6 to 9, before learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.96 of 2016.

7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

1.Preeti Gupta and another Vs State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.

2.Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281

8.Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State submits that based on the complaint of the second respondent, the first respondent Police conducted investigation and with the available materials, they have filed the final report as against accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as against accused Nos.3 and 4 under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as against accused No.5, under Section 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and as against accused Nos.6 to 9 under Section 498(A) IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.C.No.96 of 2016 and the veracity of the evidences can only be tested during the trial and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the criminal original petition.

17.In the case on hand, the complaint is lodged without even minimum required details, such as date, time and place of the offence. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted merely on the vague allegations. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18.In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.96 of 2016 on the file of the learned learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel Kanyakumari District as against these petitioners is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.