G VIJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who was ranked as second accused in C.C. No. 227 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, in a complaint taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 498(A) r/w 109 IPC, 406 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, seeking to quash the said proceedings against her.

(2.) Heard Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. S. Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first Respondent and Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court for the second Respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit in his argument that the Petitioner was ranked as second accused in C.C. No. 227 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, taken cognizance on the strength of the charge sheet filed by the first Respondent police on a case registered in Cr. No. 6 of 2010 on the file of the first Respondent police and the complaint was given by the second Respondent/defector complainant. He would further submit that the allegation against the Petitioner/second accused in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet would be that she is having immoral relationship with the defector complainant's husband. He would further submit that the Petitioner is the proprietor of a company in the name and style of "A.R. Satyanarayanan & Co.," at Khammam, Andra Pradesh State and the husband of the defector complainant was working with the Petitioner since 1997 even before his marriage and the defector complainant's husband was also staying in a rented premises belonging to the Petitioner's property for the past 10 years and there was no allegation against the Petitioner/second accused. He would also submit that even otherwise the allegations made in the complaint regarding the harassment or cruelty from the Petitioner is admitted, the Petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability as per the provisions of the Section 498 (A) IPC, since she cannot come under the definition of the relative of the husband. Therefore, the provision of Section 498(A) IPC will not apply as against the Petitioner. He also brought it to the attention of this Court a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in between U. Suvetha v. State, 2009 2 MadLJ(Cri) 1079 in support of his arguments. He would further submit in his arguments that the F.I.R allegations would go to show the harassment was only done at Andra Pradesh and there was no harassment within the limits of Respondent police. He would insist the Court to come to a conclusion that the Respondent police has no jurisdiction to try any harassment inflicted in Andra Pradesh and on that score itself the case registered against the Petitioner cannot be sustained. He would also bring to the notice of this Court to a judgment of this Court in between Balchand and Poonam Chand Chhaparwal v. State,2008 3 MadLJ 792 in support of his arguments. He would also submit in his argument that the charge sheet filed after the completion of investigation, is therefore not sustainable and the petition filed to quash the said charge sheet may be allowed.