IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2269-2270 OF 2009 Arising out of SLP(Crl.) NOs. 8375-8376/2008)

D.K. Ganesh Babu ..    Appellant(s)

                    Versus

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. ..    Respondent(s)  

                                                      O R D E R

Leave granted.

These  appeals  at  the  instance  of  the  

complainant/informant (the brother of the deceased, Madhu  

Devi) are directed against the judgment and order dated  

August 22, 2008, passed by the Madras High Court whereby it  

quashed the charges under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304B/34  

of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  (for  short,  “the  IPC”)  and  

Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act framed  by the  

trial court against the three respondents who happened to  

be the sister-in-law, the mother-in-law and the father-in-

law respectively  of the deceased.

Madhu Devi was married to Naveen Kumar, the son of  

respondents  Nos.  3  and  4  on  November  30,  2000.   She  

committed  suicide  by  hanging  herself  on  July  1,  2006.  

Earlier to that also she had attempted to commit suicide in  

the year, 2002.  She left behind a suicide note, a copy of

which is at page 56 of the Special leave Petition and which  

was placed before us a number of times.  

: 2 :

The brother of the deceased, the appellant,  

lodged the first information report at the Adayar Police  

Station on July 2, 2006, in which he made allegations that  

after the marriage of his sister, her husband and the three  

respondents made repeated demands for dowry and in that  

connection constantly harassed her and subjected her to  

torture  that  eventually  led  her  to  commit  suicide.  The  

police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against  

the  three  respondents  and  Naveen,  the  husband  of  the  

deceased. On the basis of the charge-sheet received from  

the police, the trial Court framed charges against all the  

four  accused,  including,  the  three  respondents  under  

Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4  

of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At that stage, the three  

respondents approached the Madras High Court for quashing  

the charges framed by the trial court against them. The  

Madras  High  Court  by  a  lengthy  judgment  allowed  their  

applications and quashed the charges insofar as the three  

respondents are concerned.  

On  hearing  counsel  for  the  parties  and  on  going  

through the High Court judgment coming under appeal and the  

other  materials  on  record  we  feel  that  the  High  Court  

completely  misdirected  itself  in  delving  deep  into  the

evidences that might be led before the trial Court, on  

behalf of the prosecution as also from the side of the  

defence.    Undertaking an exercise based on a detailed  

appreciation of evidences that might come in the course of  

: 3 :

the trial, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that  

“the prosecution had not placed any prima facie material  

before the trial court in the form of the charge-sheet” to  

justify  subjecting  the  respondents  to  trial  on  charges  

under sections 498A, 306, 304B/34 of the IPC and sections 3  

& 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act. It, accordingly, quashed  

the charges framed against them.

We are unable to agree with the view taken by  

the  High  Court  that  there  was  no  prima  facie  material  

before the trial court to frame charges against the three  

respondents and to put them up on trial. It is noted above  

that Madhu Devi died within seven years of her marriage.  

She died by committing suicide. Hence, the death certainly  

can  not  be  said  to  have  occurred  under  normal  

circumstances. We have been taken through the suicide note,  

the  first  information  report  and  the  contents  of  the  

charge-sheet. We do not wish to make any comments on the  

veracity of the allegations made therein but we must say  

that  all  the  three  documents  undeniably  contain  

allegations  of  demand  of  dowry  and  Madhu  Devi  being  

subjected  to  harassment  and  torture  in  connection  with

those  demands.  Whether  or  not  the  prosecution  would  be  

eventually able to substantiate its allegations against the  

three respondents by leading cogent and reliable evidence  

before the trial Court and how the prosecution case would  

stand in the light of any evidence that might be led on  

behalf of the defence is yet to be seen. But prima facie  

: 4 :

there are allegations comprising all the ingredients of the  

offences for which the trial court framed charges against  

the  respondents  and  there  are  materials  which  taken  on  

their  face  value  would  lead  to  the  inference  of  the  

respondents’ guilt. It is not a case which could be quashed  

by the High Court even at the stage of framing of charge by  

the trial court and the respondents must be made to face  

the trial.

In the result we allow the appeals, set aside  

the order passed by the High court and direct the trial  

Court to proceed with the trial, in accordance with law.  

                                    ....................J.                  [AFTAB ALAM]                                 

                                          ....................J.                 [Dr.MUKUNDAKAM  SHARMA]   

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 30, 2009.