IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8-02-2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P.No.11031 of 2006 and CRL.M.P.No.2880 of 2006 1. Ammai Sabanayagam 2. Pankajam 3.T.M. Duraiswamy .. Petitioners /Accused 1 to 3 Versus State rep by Sub Inspector All Women's Police Station Chidambaram .. Respondent /Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records and quash the proceedings of charge sheet in C.C.No.116 of 2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram For Petitioners : Mr.M.V.L. Narasimhan For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran APP ORDER The petitioners are A.1 to A.3 in C.C.No.116 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between the first petitioner and the complainant took place on 13.6.2003. Though initially dowry has been given, the petitioners ill-treated and demanded more dowry and since there is delay in giving, the petitioners have chased away the complainant from matrimonial home. 3. The respondent police, on conclusion of the investigation, filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken cognizance of the case for the offences aforementioned. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations put forth by the prosecution is erroneous and false. Legal notice has been issued by the complainant and reply has been sent. Instead of proceeding, as per the Notice, in the Family Court, the present case has been taken on file before the learned Magistrate. He also submits that a divorce petition in HMOP No.57 of 2005 has been filed by the complainant against the first petitioner and after filing of the present petition before this Court, an order has been passed in favour of the petitioner and under such circumstances, sought for quashing the proceedings. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, the proceeding is still pending without any progress, since it has been stayed by this Court. 6. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. On perusal of the statements of witnesses, prima-facie it appears that an offence is made out. Proceedings, which was pending in the Family Court for divorce, is nothing to do with the case pending before the learned Magistrate. Even in the present petition, the defacto- complainant, who is the aggrieved party, has not been taken as one of the respondents and the petition, to quash the proceedings, has been filed behind her back and without her knowledge. 7. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable in law. Even on merits the petitioners cannot succeed in this petition since there are abundant materials to proceed against the petitioners themselves. Hence the petition to quash the proceedings in in C.C.No.116 of 2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram is dismissed. However, the petitioner may agitate all the grounds raised before this Court before the trial Court. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. Sr Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram 2.-do- thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore District. 3.Sub Inspector, All Women's Police Station, Chidambaram 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. + One cc to Mr. M.V.L. Narasimha, Advocate sR 6304 VSV (co) sg 21/2/08 Crl.O.P.No.11031/2006 8-2-2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/