High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 25.10.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCrl.O.P.(MD).No.3254 of 2024andCRL.M.P. Nos.2578 and 2576 of 20241.Marimuthu2.Pappa3.Kavitha Devi4.Annakamu ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 5-Vs-1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai City, Madurai. Crime No.29/2022. .... 1st Respondents / De-facto Complainant2.Thenmozhi ... 2nd Respondents / De-facto ComplainantPrayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.926 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, dated 09.05.2023 and quash the same.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 2024For Petitioners: Mr.R.VelmuruganFor R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)For R2: Mr.C.Sundaravadivel ORDER The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.926 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, dated 09.05.2023, which was filed for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 406 and 506(i) of IPC.2. The allegation in the impugned final report is that the first accused, who is son of the petitioners 1 and 2, got married to the second respondent on 02.07.2017; that at the time of marriage, the parents of the second respondent had gifted 22 sovereigns of gold jewels; that the first accused lived with the second respondent only for 1 ½ years and during that time, the petitioners along with the first accused had committed cruelty in many ways; that a child was born out of the wedlock; that the second respondent was sent for treatment to Kerala for two years; that thereafter, they had never permitted the second respondent to visit the child and thus committed the aforesaid offences.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 20243. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation of cruelty in connection with dowry demand is false; that the second respondent had suffered from an ailment; that when she went for treatment, she handed over her child to the petitioners; that the petitioners 3 and 4, who are sister and sister's husband of the first accused, are living separately; that the allegations, at best, would suggest that there is a dispute with regard to the custody of the child; that in the anticipatory bail filed by the first accused in Crl.O.P(MD) No.593 of 2023, this Court had recorded that the jewels of the second respondent was returned to her; and that the impugned prosecution as against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law.4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent, who reiterated the allegations in the final report and the material filed with the final report.5. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the allegations would constitute the offences alleged; and that points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in the quash petition.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 20246. From the statement of the second respondent made during investigation and the statements of the other witnesses, it is seen that there are materials to proceed as against the first accused in the trial. The second respondent has lodged a FIR in Crime No.29 of 2022, which has culminated in the impugned final report. In the said FIR, the second respondent had stated that the first accused had filed a petition for divorce making false allegations; that the petitioners along with the first accused had threatened the second respondent of dire consequences, if she did not withdraw the Police complaint; that the petitioners did not permit the second respondent to visit the child; and that they retained 22 sovereigns of gold jewels belonging to the second respondent. 7. As stated earlier, in the impugned final report, the main allegation as against the petitioners is that the petitioners are refusing to permit the second respondent to visit the child and hand over the custody of the child. It is not in dispute that the second respondent has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.1055 of 2023 seeking divorce and there is a petition relating custody of the child pending in G.W.O.P.No.622 of 2022 between the parties. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 20248. Be that as it may, this Court had also perused the statements of the defacto complainant. The allegation in the FIR, statements and the impugned final report, do not suggest the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC as against the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with the first accused had retained 22 sovereigns of gold jewels gifted by the second respondent's parents at the time of marriage. This Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the first accused, had observed that 11 sovereigns of gold jewels were handed over to the second respondent and the first accused has filed an affidavit that he would hand over the remaining 11 sovereigns of gold jewels to the second respondent within a period of six months. It is seen from the above order that the first accused had taken upon himself the responsibility of returning the jewels.9. The petitioners are parents, sister and sister's husband of the first accused and they are living away from the matrimonial home and have nothing to do with retaining of jewels and the matrimonial affairs of the defacto complainant and the first accused. Besides the vague allegations against the petitioners, there is nothing to incriminate them to warrant the continuation of the prosecution against them. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 2024 10. Therefore, the impugned prosecution in C.C.No.926 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, dated 09.05.2023, is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed as against the petitioners alone. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai, may proceed the case as against the first accused, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.11. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.25.10.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ NoIndu/dk6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 2024To1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai City, Madurai.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3254 of 2024SUNDER MOHAN, J.Indu/dkCrl.O.P(MD).No.3254 of 202425.10.20258/8