IMRAN CHIDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner seek to quash the proceedings pending against them before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.533 of 2005 for the offences under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant who is the second respondent herein married the petitioner/first accused on 05.01.2003 and it was an arranged marriage. About one week prior to the date of marriage, the first accused family members called the brother of the defacto complainant and a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was demanded. THE father and brother of the defacto complainant arranged a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and they gave it to the petitioner/first accused and sister Shabna/4th accused. THEreafter, the petitioner/first accused had gone to Dubai and the defacto complainant's father arranged for his job and he had to bear all the expenses. At the time of marriage 200 sovereigns of jewels and diamond ring and other household articles were all given. A sum of Rs.10 lakhs was demanded instead of Car, but only Rs.7,50,000/- was paid. THE defacto complainant also went to Soudhi Arabia and she joined her husband where she was treated by the petitioner/first accused like a servant-maid. As the defacto complainant become conceived, she had returned to India in the month of August and she gave birth to a female child on 12.10.2003. A further sum of Rs.22 lakhs was demanded by the accused and the first accused on visiting the house of the defacto complainant's mother, he insisted for payment of Rs.22 lakhs. On 30.07.2004, when the defacto complainant went to the house of the accused along with her brother, the in-laws of the defacto complainant abused her and demanded money and also beat her on the cheek and head and when it was questioned by the parents of the defacto complainant, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.22 lakhs and the defacto complainant was driven out of the matrimonial home. THE accused have not returned the jewels and cash to the defacto complainant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the following decisions: a. 2004 Crl.L.J. 4180 (Y.Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another) b. 2005(II) SCC 388 (Kamesh Panjiyar Alias Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar) c. 2005(III) SCC 299 (Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others) d. 2005(III) SCC 302 (Mohd. Shamim and Others v. Nahib Begum(Smt) and Another) e. 2005(III) SCC 307 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav)