IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5977 OF 2018 Between:
Smt Juliana R.Vincent W/o Late A.M.John Vincent Aged 59 years, Both are residing at No.6, 13th Cross, Residents Association Road, Ejipura, Bengaluru-560 047.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Prathima S.K, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka By Viveknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
2. Richa Mishra D/o Surendranath Mishra Aged about 32 years Currently residing at No.A17, Gulmohar Vatika, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh-492 001.
(By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP for R1;
… Respondents Vide order dated 08.02.2019 Notice to R2 is Held sufficient.).
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings as against the petitioner in Cr.No.89/2017 along with FIR 89/2017 registered by the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) and 377 read with 34 of IPC read with 66E and 67 of I.T. Act pending before the I Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru produced as Annexure-A.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Smt. Prathima, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for State. Perused the case papers.
Notice issued to respondent No.2 has to be held sufficient, since it has been duly served on the father of the complainant, who resides with the respondent No.2- complainant in the same premises. Hence, service of notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient.
2. Marriage between petitioner’s son and second respondent came to be solemnized on 10.06.2015. It is admitted by second respondent– complainant that complainant and accused No.1 stayed together in Bengaluru for a short while i.e., between June, 2015 to September, 2015. The allegations made in the complaint itself would disclose that during September, 2015, second respondent left Bengaluru to stay with her parents at Raipur. On 22.01.2017, son of the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.NO.259/2017 and on service of notice, second respondent herein filed the complaint in question at Raipur which was transferred to Vivekanagar Police Station, Bengaluru and registered as FIR in Cr.No.89/2017.
3. A bare reading of the complaint, which is part of F.I.R registered against petitioner as well as her son would disclose that entire allegation is made against son or directed towards petitioner’s son. That apart, petitioner’s son has never resided with the second respondent except for few days as admitted by her and on the basis of a omnibus statement made by the complainant, petitioner has been arraigned as accused in Cr.No.89/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 377 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 67 and 66 of IT Act, 2000. Undisputedly Section 377 of IPC cannot be invoked in so far as petitioner is concerned, which is struck down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
4. Be that as it may, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHA ND OTHERS reported in (2014) 16 SUPREME COURT CASES 551 and in a catena of judgments has held that where the relatives of the husband are roped in on the basis of the complaint filed by wife attracting Section 498A of IPC and in the event of allegation made in the complaint itself does not disclose that complainant as well as such relatives were not residing with the accused or without attributing any specific role to the accused and on the basis of a sweeping statement, if accused is being prosecuted, it would definitely be onerous for such person to face trial and it would be an abuse of process of law as held by the Apex Court in the case of ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3869. Hence keeping these aspects in mind, if the allegations made in the complaint is looked into it would not take this Court too long to arrive at a conclusion that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A. In that view of the matter, continuation of the proceedings against petitioner would not only be onerous to her but would also amount to abuse of process of law.
5. Hence, criminal petition is allowed.
Proceedings pending against petitioner in Cr.No.89/2017 registered by Vivekanagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 377 read with Section 34 of IPC and 66E and 67 of IT Act, on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby quashed in so far as petitioner herein is concerned.
SD/- JUDGE ag