M. RAJALAKSHMI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Criminal Original Petitions are filed by A3 and A4 to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 3792/2012 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The case in CC. 3792/2012 arising out of the complaint given by the second respondent is taken cognizance against the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC. The petitioners in both the Crl. OPs are mother-in-law/A3 and sister-in law/A4 of the second respondent. A1 by name Saravanan and the second respondent Dr. Pinki Vedavanam, who were doctors by profession, got married in 2003 and settled at United Kingdom and the second respondent gave birth to a female child in 2004. Due to difference and dispute arose between the husband and wife, A1 Saravanan approached the Foreign Court for divorce and the marriage was, by order dated 7.1.2010 resolved on the ground that the marriage was broken down irretrievably. Thereafter, the second respondent returned to India during January 2011. The complaint, arising out of which is the present two Crl. OPs was preferred on 22.11.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar, Chennai by the second respondent and the same was registered on 18.12.2012 as Cr. No. 11 of 2011 on the file of All Women Police Station, Chennai, for the offences under sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 420, 323 r/w 34 IPC and the same was taken cognizance for the offences under sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC in CC. No. 3792/2012.

(2.) The main allegations raised against A1-husband and A2 father-in-law both in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are that the father-in-law demanded more amount by way of dowry and the husband had been, at the instance of the father-in-law, compelling the second respondent to hand over her entire salary and the husband both at abroad and during her visit at Chennai, used to abuse her and beat her and at the instance of the parents-in-law and sister-in-law, compelled to resign her job and the parents-in-law and sister-in-law encouraged A1-husband in beating his wife and A1 husband made her to part with Rs. 24 lakhs and thereafter, transferred it to his father's account to purchase a residential flat at Nolambur, Chennai and the same was later on transferred to the name of his mother etc.

(3.) As far as the mother-in-law and sister-in-law are concerned, they come forward with the present petitions for quashment of the proceedings mainly on the ground that the allegations raised against them in the complaint and charge sheet and in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses are bald, vague, without any material particulars and belated, as such, the same are not sufficient enough to prima face make out any offence against them. It is further contended that the present complaint is a counter blast against the decree obtained by the husband against the wife.