N VARADHAN Vs. S SUDHARSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of the deceased Priya. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2007 by which the Court below, accepted the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram under Section 173 (2) seeking permission to close the complaint given by the petitioner as mistake of fact, after overruling the protest petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the marriage of his daughter Priya with the first respondent herein was solemnised on 26.01.2001. According to the petitioner, his daughter was subjected to mental agony and cruelty by the respondents, with the result, she suffered 'asthma' and eventually died on 11.02.2005. Therefore, contending that her daughter was subjected to mental cruelty and harassment by the respondents, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram praying to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the respondents for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 120 B of IPC. According to the petitioner, his daughter Priya died on 11.02.2005 due to 'asthma' and such ailment was caused because of the harassment meted out to her at the instance of the respondents/accused.

(3.) The first accused was employed as a Software professional in United Status of America. After the marriage, on 20.02.2001, the petitioner's daughter and the first respondent left for United States of America. Even prior to that, the respondents 2 and 3 have left India to America and they were staying with the younger brother of the first respondent at America. On 28.04.2012, the petitioner's daughter and the first respondent, as also the respondents 2 and 3, came to India in connection with the marriage of the younger brother of the first respondent. After the marriage, on 05.05.2012, the first respondent returned to United States of America leaving the petitioner's daughter with the respondent 2 and 3. Thereafter, when the petitioner's daughter wanted to go to America to join her husband, the respondents 2 and 3 uttered a falsehood that the visa application submitted to the petitioner's daughter was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that, her daughter was deliberately not disclosed about the whereabouts of her husband/first respondent at America by the respondents 2 and 3 by which his daughter was subjected to untold mental harassment besdes that it resulted in her daughter suffering asthma which led to her death. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents are the cause for the death of her daughter, who have subjected her to mental cruelty and harassment and hence, they are liable to be prosecuted and punished for having committed the offences under Section 498-A and 120-B of IPC.