IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2424/2013 BETWEEN:
1. MRS AZRA ANSARI W/O LATE FAHIM UDDIN ANSARI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. MR ASAD ANSARI S/O LATE FAHIM UDDIN ANSARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. MRS SABA ANSARI W/O MR ASAD ANSARI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT 112/92-E SWAROOP NAGAR BENAJHABER ROAD KANPUR 208 002 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: ISMAIL M MUSBA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MICO LAYOTU POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SESSIONS COURT BANGALORE 560 001 2. MRS PARVEEN BANU ANNIGERI W/O SALIM ANSARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.70 KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BTS LAYOUT ARAKERE, BANGALORE 76 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; Ms. MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCAT FOR SRI: NITIN R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR. NO.28/2013 ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT DATED 21.01.2013 BY THE RESPONDENT MICO LAYOUT P.S., AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the records.
This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR registered against petitioners in Crime No.28/2013 by Mico Layout police station, Bangalore, under sections 498A read with 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners are shown as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners, at the outset, would submit that the allegations made in the complaint are directed mainly against accused No.1. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners herein were residing in the matrimonial home with respondent No.2 at any point of time and under the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioners to subject respondent No.2 to ill-treatment and cruelty as alleged in the FIR. Even with regard to the demand of dowry, it is contended that all the allegations are levelled against accused No.1 and hence, registration of FIR against petitioners for the above offences is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court.
3. Disputing the submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to the relevant allegations contained in the complaint and would submit that these allegations squarely attract the ingredients of the above offences warranting investigation and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned Addl. SPP also argued in support of respondent No.2 and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have bestowed my careful thought to the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the averments made in the petition.
6. A reading of the complaint indicates that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 came to know each other through Shaadi.com in 2009 and their engagement was performed at Gadag on 18.07.2010 and marriage was celebrated in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh on 29.10.2010. In the complaint, there are allegations that at the time of marriage, accused No.2/petitioner No.2 namely brother-in-law of accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and in satisfaction of the said demand, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid into the hands of accused No.1.
7. A careful reading of the complaint suggests that alleged amount was demanded by accused No.2 towards marriage expenses and not by way of dowry. Even otherwise, according to complainant, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid into the hands of accused No.1. It is not the case of complainant that remaining portion was paid into the hands of petitioners herein or that petitioners herein made a demand for the said amount at any point of time. On the other hand, a reading of the complaint indicates that the said amount was expended towards marriage expenses and therefore, said allegation, even if accepted at its face value, does not attract the ingredients of Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. Insofar as the allegations attracting the offences under section 498A of IPC is concerned, all the allegations in this regard are directed only against accused No.1. The complaint discloses that after the marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing together at Chennai and in Bangalore. There is nothing in the entire complaint to suggest that petitioners herein have been residing in the matrimonial house along with accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Though learned counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to portion of the complaint to impress upon the court that when the parents of the respondent No.2 had visited them in Chennai, they were not allowed to enter into the house; this allegation does not constitute an offence under section 498A of IPC. On the other hand, it discloses that none of the petitioners were residing in the matrimonial house with accused No.1 and respondent No.2 at the relevant time making it evident that all the allegations made against the petitioners are false and baseless and they have been implicated in the alleged offences solely out of spite and out of vengeance on account of strained relationship between respondent No.2 and her husband accused No.1. In that view of the matter, registration of FIR and consequent investigation, insofar as petitioners are concerned, being malicious and vexatious is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed.
FIR registered in Crime No.28/2013 by Mico Layout police station, Bangalore are quashed only insofar as petitioners herein are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss.