Varun Kumar moves Madras High Court to quash criminal proceedings

Chennai: The Madras high court has ordered notice to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, on a petition from Varun Kumar, IPS, which sought to quash the proceedings pending against him before a city court under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.

Justice M.S.Ramesh also dispensed with the personal appearance of Varun Kumar before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate court, Saidapet, where the case is pending.

According to Varun Kumar, on a complaint from one G.Priya Dharshini that Varun Kumar had betrayed her after promising to marry her, the CCB filed an FIR and thereafter filed the charge sheet. The defacto complainant has foisted a complaint against him only with a mala fide intention to harass him and wreak vengeance. He never had any criminal intention to fraudulently or dishonestly deceive the complainant on the pretext of marriage proposal. At best, this was a case of strained friendship between the complainant and him, which turned sour subsequently and per se there was no marriage arrangement or negotiations whatsoever, he added.

He said the lower court failed to consider the statements of the complainant herself that she was introduced as fiancé of the petitioner to relatives and friends, which proves beyond doubt that the petitioner had genuine intention of marrying her, however the marriage discussions failed to see the light of the day due to estrangement and difference of opinion. Hence, the vital ingredient of "Deception to inception" to attract the offence of cheating was completely missing. He was charged for alleged offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and TN Prohibition of harassment of Woman Act, which itself was self-contradictory. According to the charge sheet section 417 was attracted for alleged denial to marry after making a false promise to marry. On the contrary, the final report itself reads that the marriage was allegedly mutually agreed and scheduled to take place in December 2011 but fell apart for want of dowry. Therefore, no offence under section 417 was made out. The trial court also failed to consider that the report of the Dowry Prohibition Officer has not been filed along with the charge sheet even the investigation officer has referred to a report filed by the Dowry Prohibition Officer.

The prosecution has willfully suppressed the report of the Dowry Prohibition Officer, for a very simple reason that it favours him and it concluded that no dowry demand was made at any point of time. The intention of the complainant was to maliciously implicate the petitioner in a dowry demand case with an ulterior motive only to wreck vengeance and to quench her manifest personal grudge, Varun Kumar alleged.