SUMA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C. C. No. 514 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in view of the changed circumstances.

(2.) IN her affidavit, the petitioner would submit that she preferred a complaint against respondents 2 and 3 before the first respondent in which a case was registered in Cr. No. 28 of 2001, which has culminated in filing of the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; that initially, the third respondent was arrested and was released on bail whereas the second respondent was shown as an absconder since he was residing in the United States of America; that the case was separated and the third respondent was questioned on 9. 9. 2003 for the said offence and the matter was posted for trial and subsequently, the second accused i. e. the second respondent herein appeared before the Court and the case was clubbed together and the matter is posted on 8. 11. 2003 for trial; that initially she had filed the case against the second respondent in the Family Court in FCOP No. 182/2001 wherein the second respondent remained exparte and an exparte decree dated 7. 1. 2002 was passed under Section 13 (1) (a) and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that while the said O. P. was pending, the second respondent filed a case in the Circuit Court of Fair Fax County, Virginia for divorce against the petitioner and she sent a detailed counter and the said case was dismissed; that after the exparte decree of divorce granted by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, she had waited for more than 22 months and subsequently, she got married to one Mr. Sridhar, who is a resident of Mumbai on 2. 10. 2003 which was registered on 18. 11. 2003 at Mumbai; that she is now permanently residing in Bombay and permanently a dependent on her husband; that now the second respondent has appeared before the Family Court and has filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree, which is pending for orders; that the present case before the learned Magistrate is also posted for trial; that though she had given a complaint on the ground for cruelty as well as for return of her personal belongings including jewels and also for dowry harassment, she finds it difficult to appear and adduce evidence before the learned Magistrate and she does not require the jewels or her personal belongings and she is prepared to compromise and compound the offence since she cannot afford to jeopardize her existing marriage; that moreover, she finds it difficult to come to Court from Mumbai which would cause disturbance to her present married life; that though the second respondent has not paid any alimony, she has to depend on her husband to attend the case to bear the travel expenses etc. , On such grounds, the petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra.