IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1580/2014 BETWEEN:
1. MR SANJEEB PARIDA S/O BHABARANJAN PARIDA, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.96, NAGARAJA NILAYA, 2ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.8, 5TH CROSS, GANGAMMA LAYOUT, GUDDADAHALLI, NAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, R.T.NAGAR POST, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
2. MR. BHABARANJAN PARIDA S/O NAGEN CHANDRA PARIDA, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANLADUBA, RAIRANGPUR POST, MAYURBHANJ, ODISHA.
3. MRS. JHARNA PARIDA W/O BHABARANJAN PARIDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANLADUBA, RAIRANGPUR POST, MAYURBHANJ, ODISHA. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI HEMANTH S, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 095.
2. MRS. SANGEETA KAPAT W/O SNJEEB PARIDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT BRAJALALCHAK, DAKSHINCHAK, BHABANIPUR, PURBA MEDINIPUR, MURSHIDABAD, HALDIA-721 654, WEST BENGAL. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I S PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI B RAVINDRA, ADV. AND SRI AJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 - ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR. NO.14/2014 ON THE COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DISMISS THE SAME PENDING BEFORE THE C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Hemanth S, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1. Sri.B.Ravindra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not addressed any arguments.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Respondent No.2 married petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 05.03.2012. After marriage, respondent No.2 started residing with petitioner No.1 at Rairangpur Bazar, Mayurbhang District, Odisha State.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 24.01.2014, alleging that she and petitioner No.1 were classmates and on the consent of their parents, their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, she started to reside with the petitioners for twenty days. Thereafter, she went to Ahemadabad. In the complaint, it is alleged that at the time of marriage, father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded car, gold worth Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- cash. It is further alleged that, since she did not bring the car, the 1st petitioner started torturing her and demanding her to bring new car, otherwise, to bring amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to buy a car.
4. Even though, it is stated in the complaint that at the time of marriage, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant demanded for car, gold worth of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- cash, but there is no averments whatsoever, in the complaint that whether the said articles were given by the complainant either to her husband or to her in-
laws at the time of marriage or at any time subsequent thereto.
5. On the other hand, the copy of the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Haldia, Purba Medinipur in Matrimonial Suit No.26/2016 indicates that, the complainant and petitioner No.1 have obtained a divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said judgment, it is mentioned that, the complainant and petitioner No.1 filed a petition on 02.02.2016 stating therein that after solemnization of their marriage, they started living as husband and wife in the house of petitioner No.2 at Rayrangpur Village Bazar, Mayubhang District, Orissa State. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born namely Sasmit Parida. Further, recital of the said judgment which is relevant for purpose read as under:
“In course of their joint living it was found that their habits, tastes are different and despite best endeavour, it was not possible for their joint living and since 07.09.2013 they started living separately.”
These averments are contrary to the allegations made in the complaint and the FIR, wherein it is stated since that the complainant has not procured the car as demanded by the petitioners, she was tormented in the matrimonial house. Even otherwise, the allegations made in the complaint are vague and not definite. There is no averment as to whether the complainant has paid any part of dowry to the petitioners. It is also not forthcoming as to when the alleged demand was made by petitioner No.1 for car, as stated above. on the other hand, the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, in Matrimonial Suit No.26/2016 indicates that, till 07.09.2013, the parties were residing together and even a son was born to them. In the light of these facts, the allegation made against the petitioners appears to be a ruse to foist a criminal case against the petitioners, after the dissolution of her marriage, apparently with some ulterior motive .
6. That apart, the allegations made against the petitioners do not make out the offence under Sec.498A of IPC. The section reads as under:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
7. In the instant case, the only allegation made against the petitioners is that they demanded her to bring car. What is the cruelty meted out to her for not satisfying this demand is not specified. This allegation, therefore, even if uncontraverted, does not bring the case within the ambit of Sec.498A of IPC or Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As a result, the prosecution of the petitioner being illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court, is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Cr.No.14/2014 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-