DHANLAKSHMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet in C.C. No.333 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.

(2.) The facts of the case is as follows: The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the alleged offence committed under Sections 498(A), 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 637 of 2007. One Gnanalakshmi, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant was married to one Raman in the year 1998. The first and second petitioners are the parents of the said Raman. At the time of marriage, the defacto complainant gave away the essential articles to run the family. After marriage, the couple were residing at Ooty and a child was born to the said Gnanalakshmi. Unfortunately, the child died on the next day of the delivery. Thereafter, the said Raman went to Canada for higher studies and subsequently, obtained a job and settled there. At the insistence of the said Raman, his wife Gnanalakshmi joined with him at Canada in the year 2002 and the de facto complainant also accompanied his daughter to Canada. There at Canada, the de facto complainant found that his daughter was not living happily with her husband, who demanded money, and subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, the de facto complainant gave 1600 Canadian Dollars which was worth about Rs. 15,000/-. But not satisfied with the same, the husband demanded more money and to meet the demand, the de facto complainant made arrangement of 2,500 Canadian Dollar from the account of her daughter Gnanalakshmi at Rajapalayam Branch. Even thereafter, the de facto complainant received calls from his daughter that her husband was demanding more money and used to beat her and hence, the de facto complainant met the parents and brother viz., Vinayagamoorthy of Raman, who were instigating him for such demand and cruelty and they justified the demands. The de facto complainant was meeting the demands on various times. When the de facto complainant requested the said Raman to send back his daughter to India he refused by saying that he has to get permission from his mother, who is the first petitioner and accordingly, when the first petitioner was requested, she demanded more dowry and refused to send his daughter back to India. This was continuing for some time and on 22.11.2006-the said Raman assaulted his wife so badly and she died. The Canadian Police filed a case of murder and intimated the death of the victim. The allegation of the de facto complainant is that only on the instigation of the petitioners, the said Raman had demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty and ultimately murdered her.

(3.) A case was registered in Crime No. 637 of 2007 based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant against the petitioners. On completion of investigation, the respondent police has filed a charge-sheet against A1 and A2 under Section 498(A), 406 and Section 4(1)(A) of Dowry Prohibition Act and against A3 under Section 498, 406 read with 109 I.P.C. The petitioners have come forward before this Court for quashing the charge- sheet on the ground that the marriage took place in the year 1998; the husband had gone to Canada in the year 2000; only in the year 2002 the victim joined her husband and nearly for 2 years the victim was residing only with her parents; till 2006 the couple were living happily in Canada and till such time there was no complaint of cruelty or dowry demand. Further, the petitioners contended that their son is facing criminal prosecution at Canada for the death of the victim and the petitioners have nothing to do with the said crime. Moreover, the de facto complainant gave the said complaint only on 17.4.2007, which is after five months after the death of the victim by raising false allegation without any material and there is no evidence to constitute the said offences or make out a case against the petitioners.