ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. A. Ragunathan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as A4 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 498A and 506 Part II, IPC 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 de facto complainant under Section 161, Cr.P.C. making out the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A, IPC. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the de facto 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 S. 161, Cr.PC statement of the de facto complainant only to the extent of implicating the petitioner herein for the allegation that the petitioner has abused and ill-treated the de facto complainant. But there is absolutely no allegation to the effect that the petitioner ill-treated or treated the de facto 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. 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 S. 498A or 506 Part II, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are not mdde out.

(3.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Cri. Side) submitted that there are specific and definite allegations revealed against the petitioner herein who has been arrayed as A-4 in this case. It is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Cri. Side) that in the complaint itself the de facto complainant has clearly and categorically stated that the petitioner, brother-in-law of the de facto complainant, along with her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law joined together and ill-treated the de facto complainant and demanding 100 sovereign of jewellery and Rs. 1,00,000 as dowry. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that there is also a specific allegation in the complaint itself alleging that the petitioner, brother-in-law along with mother-in-law and father-in-law, demanded the de facto complainant to bring 10 lakhs cash and without that cash she could not enter the matrimonial house. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate (Cri. Side) that there are enough and sufficient materials available on record to implicate the petitioner who has been arrayed as A4 in this case and as such there is no ground made out for quashing the proceedings in respect of the petitioner.