IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.9624 of 2007 E.Balajee .. Petitioner/Accused Vs The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police, W-1, All Woman Police Station, Thousandlights, Chennai-600 006 (AWPs Cr.No.30/97) .. Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in C.C.No.8707/1997 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the charge sheet filed by the respondent in the said case as against the petitioner in AWPS Cr.No.30/97. For Petitioner : R.Srinivas For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj, GA (Crl.Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking a direction to call the records in C.C.No.8707/1997 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the charge sheet filed by the respondent in the said case as against the petitioner in AWPS Cr.No.30/97. 2. The petition averments are as follows: 2.1. The respondent registered a case against the petitioner and his father Mr.M.K.Ethirajalu (A-1), mother Mrs.Lakshmi Ethirajalu (A- 2), brother E.Sridhar (A-3). The petitioner was the 4th accused in the above case. 2.2. The case was registered as AWPS Cr.No.30/97 on the complaint given by one Mr.Parthasarathy, son of Rama Naidu. 2.3. The prosecution case was A-3 is the son of A-1 and A-2. Balajee(the petitioner) who is the son of A-1 and A-2 was employed at Dubai as an Engineer. During the end of 1996 A-1 approached the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant Parthasarathi and proposed alliance of marriage for his son Balaji the petitioner herein with the complainant's daughter Miss.Rekhamalini. On 10-02-1997, all the accused visited the house of the complainant and after seeing the Bride, on 17-02-1997, the accused had consented for the marriage. It was also agreed between them that since the petitioner was leaving for Dubai shortly, the marriage could be formally registered before the Marriage Registrar, so as to arrange for spouse visa for Rekhamalini. Accordingly, on 20-02-1997, the marriage between the petitioner and Rekhamalini was registered before the Marriage Registrar at Anna Nagar. After the marriage, Balaji left India for Dubai. On 16-06-1997, betrothal was performed at Hotel Dasprakash in the presence of elders and relatives in the absence of the petitioner and the marriage date was fixed as 03-10-1997. Before betrothal, the complainant booked Gajalakshmi Kalayana Mandapam at Velappanchavadi, for marriage. 2.4. During the first week of July 1997, A-1 to A-3 approached the complainant and demanded 120 sovereigns of gold jewels and 10 kg of silver articles for the girl, for which the complainant agreed. Again A-1 to A-3 during the first week of August, 1997 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and a house property in the name of Balaji as dowry before 30-08-1997 and stated that only then Balaji would come to India for the marriage. Thereafter, within two days, A-1 also demanded over phone that the complainant should part with another sum of Rs.99,000/- for purchase of sridhana articles for Ugadhi festival as otherwise, the marriage would not take place, and stated that all the demands should be met with before the marriage. 2.5. Finally on 30-08-1997, A-1 informed that the marriage will not take place and asked to stop printing wedding cards and other arrangements. When Dr.Venkatesan, the brother-in-law of the complainant contacted the petitioner over phone, Balaji also said that all the demands made by his father must be met with as otherwise he will not come to India for the marriage. Thus, all the accused, even prior to the Registration of the marriage, have with the common intention of extorting and demanding money and property as Dowry from the complainant, induced the complainant to register the marriage and perform betrothal and the complainant incurred heavy expenses for all these and all the accused have caused great mental agony to Rekhamalini. The respondent investigated the case and a final report was filed against the accused under Sections 417, 420, 498-A Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2.6. The Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, took cognizance of the case in C.C.No.8707 of 1997 in respect of all the accused, including the petitioner. 2.7. Further as per the order of this Hon'ble Court in Crl.R.C.No.460 of 2001 and other connected matter dated 25.04.2001 the case against the petitioner was split up as he was working abroad https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and shown as an absconding accused. The case against the petitioner was taken up as C.C.No.6532/2001 and that against the other accused proceeded as CC No.8707/1997. The accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.8707 of 1997 i.e., the parents and brother of the petitioner faced prosecution and trial under Sec.498-A, 417, 420 I.P.C and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2.8. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate who heard the above case acquitted the parents and brother of the accused in the above case under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and held that the above charges against them were not proved. 2.9. The trial Court had totally disbelieved the prosecution case. It has found that Rekhamalini was totally disinterested in the marriage, and that the complaint against the petitioner and the other accused was given only because A-1 refused to give consent for a Divorce. The Court below had found that Rekhamalini and other crucial witnesses were not examined and that the defacto complainant and other witnesses including P.W-2 Venkatesan were not speaking the truth. The Court also found that the nature of the alleged demand as spoken by P.W-1 and P.W-2 and other witnesses were totally different, inconsistent and unbelievable. 2.10. Further the Court found that the complainant in the above case was given by P.W-1 to the police on 30-09-2007, but Rekhamalini had filed a divorce petition on 08-09-2007 to the knowledge of the PW1 which was never disclosed by the prosecution. The said Rekhamalini had got married to some one else. It was also proved that P.W-1 did not send the original passport of Rekhamalini as requested by the accused to facilitate issuance of visa to her to join the petitioner. The court below came to a conclusion that there was no dowry demand and that P.W-1 had falsely given the complaint, since his daughter Rekhamalini refused to get formally married to the petitioner and he wanted to cover up her follies and take revenge on the petitioner and his family. 2.11. On account of the above reasons, the Court below acquitted the parents and brother of the petitioner i.e., A1 to A3 in CC.No.8707/1997 by order dated 22-01-2001. No appeal has been filed against the said order either by State or by the defacto complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, given the above factual circumstances, there is absolutely no possibility of the case pending against the accused ending in his conviction. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Mohammed Illias v. State of Karnataka 2001(4) Crimes 417, wherein it has been observed as follows: “2. The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be absconding. Therefore, the case against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against the other available accused 1 to 3 who faced trial in SC No.24 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the I.P.C read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused 1 to 3. The judgment of the Sessions Judge produced discloses that all the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge-sheet. In view of the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3, the petitioner contends that the trial whatever proposed to be held against him. In the ultimate analysis, cannot have any different result other than the acquittal handed out to accused 1 to 3. Therefore he has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in CC.No.1104 of 1998. 3. In this regard, the Counsel relied upon the ruling of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. State. In the said decision the ruling of the Supreme Court are also referred to and followed. In para 4 it is held thus: “On perusal of the judgment of acquittal dated 19-1-1998, it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons. The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (P.W.2) and Smt.Asha Rani (P.W.5) (wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex. P.W.13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh. Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Eliminating the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex.P.W.123/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It would therefore appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Thus, the evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion of on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheet wastage of time. It is advisable to truncate or ship the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings at stage of Section 227 of the Code itself. 4.In the instant case also the full-fledged trial was held against accused 1 to 3 in respect of the same offence and they were acquitted. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case in SC No.24 of 1998. Therefore, in that view of the matter the proceedings in CC No.1104 of 1998 is quashed.” 4. Considering the above submissions and being in respectful agreement with the rationale reflected in the decisions cited, this Courts directs that the proceedings in C.C.No.8707/1997 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai shall stand quashed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jvm To 1.The Inspector of Police, W-1, All Woman Police Station, Thousandlights, Chennai-600 006 (AWPs Cr.No.30/97) 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 1 cc To Mr.R.Srinivas, Advocate, SR.64471. Crl.O.P.No.9624 of 2007 RSM(CO) RVL 10.12.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/