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.5753 of 2013 BETWEEN:
Sri. K.L. Raju S/o late Lingaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/at No.7, Chikkalsandra, Bengaluru – 560 061. …Petitioner (By Sri. P.D. Pancham, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Through K.M. Doddi Police Station, Mandya District – 560 053 Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Smt. S. Anitha D/o Mahadevaiah, Aged about years, R/at Haralahalli Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-1 Sri. M.V. Hiremath, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.225/2013 registered against the petitioner by respondent No.1, which is pending on the file of the C.J., (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Maddur.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No.225/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and consequent charge sheet laid against him for the above offences.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not a family member of the complainant and therefore, the charge against the petitioner under Section 498A of IPC cannot stand. He further submits that in the complaint lodged, at the earliest instance, no allegations were leveled against the petitioner attracting Section 498A of IPC and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the above offence is illegal and an abuse of process of the Court. Insofar as offence under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, learned counsel submits that the allegations are false and baseless and no material is produced by the prosecution in support of the said charge and hence, he seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 submit that the allegations made in the complaint clearly make out the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The complainant as well as witnesses have stated that the petitioner herein threatened the complainant on mobile phone and therefore, based on the contention urged by the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the charge sheet papers and the documents produced along with the petition, it is noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 about 3 years prior to lodging of the complaint. The complaint is lodged on 22.07.2013. The allegations of dowry demand and cruelty are directed mainly against accused No.1. The allegations against the present petitioner is that when the complainant was living in her parents house, the petitioner herein rang up to the complainant to her mobile No.9652621214 through his mobile No.9845344606 and threatened to sign the divorce papers, failing which, she should get gold or cash and auto from her parents house. The complaint as well as charge sheet is silent with regard to the date of the alleged occurrence. Though in the charge sheet, it is alleged that the complainant was threatened by the petitioner herein over phone, the said mobile phone is neither seized nor any call records are procured by the investigating agency to support the accusations. Even the allegations made in this regard appear to be self contradictory. According to the complainant, the petitioner herein threatened her to sign divorce papers or else to bring cash or gold from her parents house. There is nothing on record to indicate that any such divorce papers were prepared for the signature of the parties at any time prior to the lodging of the complaint. There is also nothing on record to indicate that accused No.1 had sought mutual divorce so as to probabalise the contention of the prosecution that such a threat could have been issued by the petitioner asking her to sign the divorce papers. On the other hand, the materials on record indicate that respondent No.1 had sought divorce against the petitioner under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and not under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the question of complainant agreeing for said divorce does not arise at all. These allegations apart from being improbable and vague, no material is produced to probablise the said charges or to probablise the allegations made against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the prosecution initiated against the petitioner, in my view, is baseless and an abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
FIR registered against the petitioner in Crime No.225/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM