SADHASIVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case is filed by the fourth accused the petitioner herein to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate I at Kuzhithurai made in C.M.P.No.1029 of 2001 in C.C.No.353 of 1998 dated 9.5.2002 dismissing the petition for discharge filed under sec.239 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the petitioner who is A4 before the court below is as follows:- The petitioner is the President of Checkala Community of Ambalakadai village. He is neither related to the complainant nor related to A1 to A3. It was falsely alleged by the de facto complainant that A1 to A4 demanded Rs.1,00,000/= as dowry prior to her marriage with A1, but her family has prepared to give Rs.80,000/= which was allegedly agreed by A1 to A3. Since the petitioner was not related to the family of the accused, charge under sec.498A IPC and sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not sustainable. The de facto complainant has stated in her complaint that additional dowry of Rs.50,000/= was demanded by her husband and mother in law and they had driven her out of the house, that she has immediately lodged a complaint with the petitioner herein requesting him to take necessary action against both of them. It is also admitted in the complaint that the petitioner herein has advised the husband of the de facto complainant to live with her and the child, but, she could not stay there because of the harassment. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner promised to deliver his decision in fifteen days, however, in the meanwhile she has chosen to give a complaint to All Women Police Station, Nagercoil. The said version was repeated by her witnesses Kolappan, Neelapillai, Neelakandan, Baburaj. The other witnesses Raghavan Pillai, Kumarapllai, Sankaranarayana Pillai have not whispered anything in their sec.161(3) statement against the petitioner herein.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr.Amarnath appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court without proper consideration of the documents erroneously found that prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner and ultimately dismissed the application for discharge.