On the complaint lodged by Nithya Pricila (defacto complainant), therespondent police registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2015 and aftercompleting the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.121 of 2016before the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, foroffences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406, 495 of the Indian Penal Code andSection 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Mohaideen Quadir Ali and fiveothers including Niranjani (A-6), for quashing which, Niranjani (A-6) isbefore this Court.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learnedcounsel appearing for the second respondent.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if theentire complaint given by the defacto complainant, her 161 statement and thecharge sheet is read, there is no allegation against Niranjani (A-6) that shehad committed any of the offences enumerated in the charge sheet.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defacto complainantsubmitted that the trial had begun in this case on 04.04.2017 and the defactocomplainant has been examined as P.W.1 and, therefore, this Court should notinterfere.Under normal circumstances, when once the trial begins, this Courtwill be loath to interfere to stifle the prosecution.However, in this case,the allegation of the defacto complainant is that she got married toMohaideen Quadir Ali (A-1) on 15.09.2007 and that her husband was working as Liaison Officer in Annamalai University, where Niranjani (A-6) was alsoemployed.She has further alleged that her husband had developed illicitintimacy with the said Niranjani (A-6), pursuant to which, she was ill-treating her.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant took this Courtthrough 161 statement of the defacto complainant.On a perusal of the same,it is seen that except saying that her husband has been talking to Niranjaniover phone very frequently and that he was having illicit intimacy with her,there is absolutely no shred of evidence against Niranjani for havingperpetrated any act directly against the defacto complainant.The allegedaffair of A-1 with Niranjani (A-6) may be a ground for causing mental crueltyto the defacto complainant, for which, A-1 alone can be held responsible andnot Niranjani (A-6).Niranjani (A-6) does not fall within the meaning of theword "relatives" under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.As regardsthe contention against 495 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not the case ofthe defacto complainant that A-1 had married her.It is her only case that hehas been talking to her continuously over mobile phone and that she suspectsher husband's fidelity.Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that theprosecution against Niranjani (A-6) is indeed an abuse of process of law andhas been predicated on surmises and suspicion of the defacto complainant.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theproceedings against Niranjani (A-6) in C.C.No.121 of 2016 on the file of theJudicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, is quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

Cited provisions: Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code