SHANMUGAVEL Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitioners are the accused 2 to 4 in case pending trial in C.C.No.68/2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi. 1st accused in the case is the husband of the defacto complainant, while the accused 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law and 4th accused is her sister-in-law. The marriage between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant took place on 27.08.2007. A child was born to them on 12.08.2008. Both families gathered on 24.06.2009 to witness the child's tonsuring. The occurrence giving rise to the complaint is alleged to have taken place on 30.07.2009. The complaint was preferred on 05.08.2009. The complaint reads as follows:

(2.) Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted that even as per Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of the defacto complainant, her sister-in-law/4th accused had informed her of the accused not having demanded any dowry towards marriage and that as her brother, the 1st accused was venturing on a new business, a sum of Rs.2 Crores may be provided theretowards. The defacto complainant has stated that her husband, the 1st accused asked her to obtain 500 sovereigns of jewels belonging to her, which were held under the control of her parents. She had not informed her father thereregards. She had informed her mother-in-law, the 3rd accused, who had advised her not to bring the same, since the 1st accused was given to wayward ways and the same was safe with her parents.

(3.) A further reading of Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of the defacto complainant also makes clear that taking up of a separate residence by the 1st accused and the defacto complainant/wife was owing to dispute between father and son. In this scenario, the allegations of visit by her to her matrimonial home, the 1st accused having demanded that a sum of Rs.2 Crores be provided immediately, of the defacto complainant having maintained silence, and a most unlikely occurrence of the 1st accused pushing her, the 3rd accused/mother-in-law holding her and of the 2nd accused/father-in-law beating her stands informed. Her statement goes on to state that after she had returned to her parental home owing to ill treatment meted out to her by the 1st accused, it was the 4th accused/sister-in-law who had informed that her husband/1st accused had reformed and had asked her to return to the matrimonial home assuring that none would interfere or make demands. The statements of the father and mother of the defacto complainant were, in substance, mere repetitions of the defacto complainant's statement. The statement of the other witnesses excepting the official witnesses do not inform of any knowledge of anything untoward in the relationship between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant. They have come to know of the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant only from newspapers.