SUBBURAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by A2 and A3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.796 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai for offences punishable under Ss. 498(A) and 406 of IPC r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners (A2 and A3) are the parents of A1. A1 and the second respondent / defacto complainant were in love affair for two years and thereafter they got married on 11/9/2019. At the time of marriage, the defacto complainant was provided with 80 sovereigns of gold and other house hold articles as sreedhana. Thereafter, the defacto complainant claims that A1 forcibly took her jewels and handed it over to A3's sister in the guise of keeping it safely. Thereafter, A1 and A2 compelled the defacto complainant to pledge jewels weighing 40 sovereigns in the bank and they have also demanded cash and jewels from the defacto complainant. Further, the defacto complainant came to know that A1 is having an affair with another girl and thereafter A1 started abusing the defacto complainant. With the above allegations, prosecution has been launched against A1 and the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Ss. 498(A) and 406 of IPC r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that admittedly, it is a love marriage between A1 and the defacto complainant and after their marriage they are residing separately. The only allegation as against the petitioners is that at their instigation A1 has caused cruelty and took away the jewels of the defacto complainant. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that such allegations were pressed into service only due to the strained marital relationship between A1 and the defacto complainant. Except the above statement, there is no other allegation found as against these petitioners.