HARIHAR NARASIMHA IYER Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the husband of the second Respondent/Defacto Complainant, petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner and petitioners 4 and 5 are the sisters of the first petitioner. They are arrayed as Accused No. 1 to 5 in FIR No.10 of 2012 on the file of the All Women Adayar Police Station, Chennai-20 for the alleged offence under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. They have come forward with this petition seeking to quash the FIR No.10 of 2012 on the file of the first Respondent.

(2.) The allegations in the complaint are:- On 2nd June, 2010, the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent took place at Chennai. Right from the date of marriage, the husband has forced the wife to do unpleasant sexual acts. The day after the wedding there were accusations and gossips about the insufficient gold ornaments and other dowry articles brought by the wife from her parents during marriage. Even during physical intimacy, whenever the wife refused to part with his unpleasant demands, the husband used to abuse her with filthy words and physically harass her very badly. The husband used to behave with his wife in an unusual manner. The husband ensured that the complainant don't have any communication with any of her friends, relatives by denying her a telephone access, computer and any sort of communication device while she was at USA. The wife had no access to mail box or other household keys and no telephone connection was allowed to use she was like a caged bird. Most of the times the phone cable would be unplugged or disconnected so she would not be able to receive any calls from her family. The wife had no privacy or privilege of freedom to hear communications amounting to a Human Rights Violation.

(3.) Further in her complaint, she has stated that the remaining Accused persons encouraged all the sexual extortion acts of the first petitioner. The first petitioner forcibly capturing several nude and obscene pictures of her and threatening her that it would be published on line in the social networking and pornographic sites in USA if she is not meeting their demands of dowry.