MOLLY ABRAHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.155 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Additional District Judge ( Mahila Court, Chennai ).

(2.) The petitioners have been added as A2 and A3 in the final report. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the second respondent and the second petitioner is the brother-in-law of the second respondent. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, an FIR came to be registered by the respondent police against the husband and also these petitioners for an alleged offence under Sections 498 , 294 (b), 406, 324, 307 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the final report has been filed before the concerned Magistrate Court and the case was committed and taken on file by the learned Additional District Judge (Mahila Court, Chennai) in S.C.No.155 of 2017 against all the three accused persons for an alleged offence under Sections 498 , 294 (b), 406, 324, 307 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire allegation made in the complaint as well as in the final report and also the statements given by the witnesses, is only as against A1/husband and the in-laws have been unnecessarily ropped in as accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court, the divorce petition filed by the second respondent in O.P.No.900 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking for return of articles and also for money, wherein the second respondent has stated about the very same incidents that happened on 12.04.2014 and 25.04.2014. While explaining the incident in the petition, there is absolutely no reference made to the petitioners and the entire allegation was only as against the husband. However, while giving the complaint and while giving statement before the respondent police, the second respondent has intentionally ropped in name of the first petitioner, as if she also participated in the attack made against the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that there is absolutely no material or allegation made against the second petitioner, who is the brother-in-law and he has been unnecessarily added as an accused in this case.