ARUNKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.A.Ragunathan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-4 out of four accused and he has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner along with other accused for the offences under Section 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) IT is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no allegation neither in the complaint nor in the statement recorded from the defacto complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. making out the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. IT is contended by the learned senior counsel that the defacto complainant was residing separately and the petitioner is owing his own house and she used to come to the house of the petitioner to create problems. IT is also contended by the learned senior counsel that there are certain allegations containing in the complaint and in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the defacto complainant only to the extent of implicating the petitioner herein for the allegation that the petitioner has abused and ill-treated the defacto complainant. But there is absolutely no allegation to the effect that the petitioner ill-treated or treated the defacto complainant cruelly for the purpose of demanding dowry. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh V. State of T.N. reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 735 for the proposition that if there are allegations against a particular person either sister-in-law or brother-in-law or co-brother only relating to causing insult, making derogatory remarks and behaving rudely against informant and pertaining to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of the property belonging to her, then the offence of 498-A or 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are not made out.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the complaint and the defacto complainant's statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.