REVATHI RAJASEKARAN AND SUJATHA SUNDARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have filed this Crl.O.P. to call for the records in respect of Charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 34 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar against the Petitioners and quash the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are arrayed as A.4 and A.5 in C.C. No. 34 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar; they are the sisters of A.1 and sister-in-laws of the second Respondent/de-facto complainant; there is no averment against the Petitioners and there is not even an averment of demand of dowry; the marriage between their brother and the second Respondent/de-facto complainant Thilagavathy was performed on 02.03.2006 at Tanjore; both were living together along with the father and mother of the Petitioners; the 1st Petitioner was married 12 years ago and working as Headmistress in a Government High School at Krishnagiri; the 2nd Petitioner was also married and living at Tanjore separately; there was a misunderstanding between their brother and the second Respondent/de-facto complainant and hence, she left the matrimonial home and went to her mother's place at Virudhunagar; she gave a false complaint, which has been registered in crime No. 13 of 2008 on 20.11.2008, for the offences under Sections 420, 498-A, 406 and 506 (Part 2) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the false information against the Petitioners and their brother and parents, with an ulterior motive; the Petitioners were already enlarged on bail; now they have come forward with this Crl.O.P. to quash the charge sheet, stating that the ingredients of Sections 420, 498-A, 406 and 506 (Part-2) IPC, have not been made out. To substantiate his case, learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the judgments of this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent/de-facto complainant submitted that in the F.I.R., and in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, the overt act of the Petitioners, was mentioned and whether ingredients of the offences are made out or not, is only a question of fact, which can be decided only at the time of trial. He further submitted that it is true that the first Petitioner was married and working as an HM in a Government School at Krishnagiri; her child is with the parents of the first Petitioner and hence each and every Sunday, she visited her parents' house at Tanjore; during that time, she caused cruelty as well as demand of dowry and they also extracted 40 sovereigns of jewels and money from the second Respondent/de-facto complainant. Learned Counsel for the second Respondent/de-facto complainant further submitted that A.5 is working as a Lecturer in a College at Tanjore; she has also been often visiting her parental home and at that time, she has committed the offences. Learned Counsel for the second Respondent/de-facto complainant stated that it is premature stage to quash the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the Crl.O.P.