IN THE COURT OF XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAIDAPET, CHENNAI REF: Cr.No.23/2007 - W25, All Woman Police Station -Complaint preferred by Mrs.Grahalakshmi Prashanth against Mr.T.Prashanth and 3 others - Report U/s.173(2) of Cr. P.C. State by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Dowry Cell, Thousand Lights, Chennai. -vs- Mr.T.Prashanth & 3 Others Mrs. Grahalakshmi Prashant w/o Mr. T.Prashanth, residing at No.32, South Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017, preferred a complaint against Mr. T.Prashanth (A1), Mr. S.Thiagarajan (A2), Mrs.Shanthi Thiagarajan (A3) and Ms. T. Preethi Thiagarajan (A4) for an alleged offence of dowry demand, cruelty and harassment and the same has been registered as Cr.No.23 of 2007, u/s 498 A of I.P.C. and Sec. 4 & 6(2) of D.P.Act, on the file of the W-25, All Woman Police Station, T.Nagar on 14-09-2007 as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.24815 of 2007. The above case was taken up for investigation. All the accused obtained Interim Bail from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in Crl.M.P. No.4236/2007 and the interim bail was made absolute in Crl.O.P.No.7925/2007. Mrs.Grahalakshmi in her complaint dated 07-05-2007 had stated that she was married to Mr.T.Prashanth, son of Mr.S.Thiagarajan on 01-09-2005 at Mayor Ramanathan Chettiar Marriage Hall, at Chennai as per Hindu rites and customs. The engagement was conducted at Taj Coromandel on 10-06-2005. The marriage was conducted at the expense of her parents. After the marriage the complainant lived in a joint family at No.21, Ganapathy Colony, Cenotaph Road II lane, Chennai 600018. Her husband was not intimate with her. She was a pure vegetarian till her marriage and she was forced by her mother-in-law into eating non-vegetarian because she did not bring all her share of ancestral property and family property. Her in-laws would pretend to be friendly when her husband was at home and when she complained to her husband, he advised her to comply their demands. On 15- 12-2005, her husband and her in-laws demanded for the settlement of properties in her name and her husband. Mrs.Grahalakshmi was kept in solitary confinement. She was not allowed to communicate with any one and not permitted to mingle with anyone. Always she had to be inside the bedroom allotted to them in the first floor. She was not allowed to even talk to her parents through phone except for brief intervals under supervision of her in- 3 laws. She was allowed to attend her cousin's wedding on 15.9.05 only after begging and pleading. The accused treated her as a dirt. Mrs.Grahalakshmi's sister-in-law interfered with her personal life. She was not allowed to bolt the bedroom. She was informed that unless she brings all her immoveable and moveable properties partitioned and make them available for the disposal of her father-in-law, she would not be allowed to live in peace. She stated that her husband and herself were invited to Malaysia on 5-10-2005 as a Wedding Gift and she visited Courtmalai Pillaiar Temple for Pooja on 9-10-2005 at her father's expense. Her husband demanded electronic items such as LCD, TV, DVD Player, Home Theatre System, CDs and DVDs as Dowry, this resulted in huge expenses for her family. She stated that on 11-10-2006, her husband's parents visited her parental home and demanded dowry when she was at Malaysia. After her return from M a l a y s i a her in-laws behaved very strange and indifferently. Even her husband behaved in unruly manner with her father. The "Thaali Kodi Changing" and "Thalai Deepavali" functions were denied because her family did not settle the dowry is~ue, including her share of family property and ancestral property. ;. ie was threatened that if she insist on her family hosting the functions, she would have to leave the matrimonial house. Mrs.Grahalakshmi became pregnant and her inlaws were not happy and insisted to partition the property before giving birth to the child. They doubted the paternity of the child and 4 threatened her. She had a dermoid cyst of 9 cms, therefore she required complete bed rest and her husband did not take care. She was abused verbally by her mother- in-law and sister-in-law and she was subjected to mental agony and torture. On 1-1- 2006, her husband insisted her to go to her parents home, since he would be away on film shooting till June 2006, and also that his mother was not in a condition to take care of her. She went to her parents house on 2-1-2006, she left behind valuable expensive jewellery, wedding gift received by her along with her passport and driving licence. Her husband did not write or invite her over phone to rejoin and he abruptly stopped communicating from 15-1-2006 to 24-11-2006, first day of court hearing. She was not allowed to inform her pregnancy to her parents and was prevented from making any phone calls to her parents. The following day to day use items and articles were left behind her matrimonial house, when she left: i) Original Passport; ii) Original Driving Licence; iii) 42" LCD TV; iv) Home Theatre; v) DVD Recorder; vi) Sony Digital Camera; vii) Gold Rings with Diamonds two in number; viii) Bracelet with Ruby Earrings with Diamonds; ix) One Sovereign gold coins; x) Hand Bag with cash Rs.45,000/- ; xi) Silver Bucket worth Rs.70,000/-; xii) Shoes and Chappels 8 pairs; xiii) Play Station with 100 VCDs/DVDs; xiv) Logitech Optical Mouse; xv) Movie DVDs 50 numbers; xvi) A caricature of her husband and herself; xvii) Silk sarees and daily wear sarees 50 number; xviii) Jewellery presented by her husband and his family. She was sufficiently provided with jewels by her parents and all the jewelleries that were given to her by her in-laws were kept in her matrimonial home. Her mental agony and anguish aggravated when her husband and his parents did not enquire her well being and did not visit her child. On 31-7-2006, when she tried to contact her husband to inform the arrival of the baby, she came to know that her matrimonial house was sold without her knowledge. They shifted their residence to Old No.7, New No.8, Sterling Road, II Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34 and several emails, mobile phone calls, SMS and letters written by her was returned as "NO SUCH PERSON". Her husband filed a petition in the Family Court for child visitation, he has not pressed for order and neither her husband nor his parents visited the child, all because of demand of dowry. She had not claimed all her articles but only passport and driving licence, but her husband denied the presence of the documents at home. Her husband informed her over phone to come to Five Star Hotel only to stress the demand of dowry, but she insisted that she would come to her house or his house. On 1-5-2007, she visited her husband's house at 14.00 hours to rejoin, but she was informed by some one that she was not welcomed. She stated that her only intention to go to matrimonial home to live with her husband provided her in-laws and her husband do not make any alleged demand of dowry but the attitude of her husband and her family 6 members were to settle the dowry first and then only she is welcomed. Therefore she requested to register a case and investigate the same. The I.O. contacted the complainant Mrs. Grahalakshmi on 06.11.2007 over phone for her availability at her residence for examining her and to record her statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. The Complainant stated that since her father was admitted in Hospital, she was not in a fit state to give her statement and requested the I.O. to give her sometime. Thereafter the I.O. had reminded her on several occasions and also he served a notice to the complainant on 9/1/2008 to give her statement within 10 days of receipt of the notice, since she had taken more than 65 days from the date of registering the complaint. The Complainant sent a letter by RPAD on 22/1/08, seeking 8 weeks time for giving statement, since her father passed away and the rituals were not over. The Complainant Mrs. Grahalakshmi on 19/03/2008 sent her written statement U/s.161(3) to the I.O. and he had personally examined her on 22/4/08 and her statement was recorded. In her oral and written statement in addition to the complaint, she had stated that the marriage was arranged one through her aunt, Mrs. Chithra Rangabashyam, wife of Dr.Rangabashyam, who is well known to the family of Mr.Thiagarajan. When the horoscope of hers and Mr.Prashanth were matched, Mr.Thiagarajan approached Dr.Rangabashyam and his wife to know the details of assets of Mr. Dhanasekar, the father of the complainant. Mrs. Chithra Rangabashyam approached her brother to furnish the details of assets, jewellery and other particulars. But Mr. Dhanasekar told her that it will be informed at the appropriate time.