IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.12703/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri Prakash Kalanjeri Balasubramanian, S/o. Sri Balasubramanian Kalanjeri, aged about 44 years, Presently R/At Flat No.201, KT 40 Abhijith Apartments, National High School Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore-560 004. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Shashidhara H N, Advocate) AND:
Smt Srividya Dutt, W/o. Prakash Kalanjeri Balasubramanian, aged about 37 years, R/At Flat No.103, SLV Uniworth Classic, 1st Stage, 4th Block, 9th Main, HBR Layout, Bangalore-560 043. ... Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.210/2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, at Mayo Hall, M.G.Road, Bangalore, vide Annexure-A to the W.P. and etc.
This Writ Petition coming for Preliminary Hearing on this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri. H.N.Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and perused the records 2. Marriage between petitioner and respondent came to be solemnized on 08/09/2005 and respondent- wife herein had filed a petition before I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court), Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.210/2017 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking following reliefs:
“1. Protection Order Under Section 18 : in favour of the Petitioner and prohibit the Respondent from:
(a) Committing the acts of Domestic violence.
(b) Aiding or abetting in the commission of act of domestic violence.
And to pass such order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. Monetary Relief’s under Section 20 : the Petitioner’s parents have spent money as follows and seek refund along with interest :
(a) Direct the Respondent to pay maintenance amount including food, cloth, medicines and other basic necessities amounts to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
(b) Direct the Respondent to pay school fees and other expenses of the child to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
(c) Direct the Respondent to pay permanent alimony to the Petitioner for her and her son’s future to a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Only).
And to pass such order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. Compensation Order under Section 22 : That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, mental and physical abuse etc., for the act of Domestic Violence committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner.”
3. Challenging the said initiation of the proceedings as an abuse of process of law, petitioner is before this Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of Sri. H.N.Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, who contends that proceedings initiated by respondent is abuse of judicial process and there being no allegation of any Domestic Violence by petitioner either in the form of physical abuse, oral mental abuse or driving away from shared accommodation and as such continuation of proceedings against petitioner would not only be erroneous, but also amounts to abuse of process of law, since petitioner would be made to appear before the jurisdictional Court and undergo the ordeal of trial even when there is no material to be proceeded with, which would not ultimately culminate in any relief being granted to complainant-respondent. He would further submit that petitioner is not only paying maintenance to respondent-wife, but also taking care of needs of his minor son and as such, he seeks for quashing of proceedings.
5. A perusal of petition filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would clearly indicate that several allegations are made against petitioner alleging that from initial stage he was having sexual problems; parents of petitioner never allowed petitioner and respondent to spend time together;
respondent had been deprived of all her basic necessities; petitioner never gave sufficient money to run the family; he used to fight at the behest of his parents; he did not allow her to dress-up neatly to go out for functions or on festival days; used to abuse in filthy and vulgar language; physically assaulted her on many occasions and on one occasion, had assaulted her, resulting in nose bleeding and it is further alleged that petitioner used to harass respondent mentally and physically. It is on these allegations amongst others, that is made out in the petition and prayer extracted above has been sought for by the respondent against petitioner before the jurisdictional Court.
6. Only point which arises for consideration by this Court is whether proceedings so initiated by petitioner herein is liable to be quashed at the threshold. It is well settled law that jurisdictional Court, while summoning respondent, is required to be satisfied with prima-facie case for summoning all the persons. Trial Court is not required to evaluate merits of the case or material evidence placed on record in support of complaint, in as much as Magistrate would not undertake the exercise to find out whether such material would lead to conviction or otherwise.
7. Quashing of proceedings would be called for where complaint does not disclose any offence or it is frivolous or vexatious. Meticulous analysis of the material evidence placed by complainant would not be examined by this Court and same has to be evaluated by the trial Court to find out whether case would end in grant of relief sought for or not. If, on a meaningful reading of the complaint and considerations of allegations made therein, applicant being entitled to some relief, it could be a good ground to reject the prayer sought for quashing of the proceedings. Defence that may be available or facts which would be established during trial may lead to either acquittal of petitioner-accused would not be a ground for quashing of the complaint at the threshold. If the ingredients alleged in complaint do make out a case for proceeding to trial, it would not call for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
8. In the light of aforestated discussion, this Court is of the considered view that allegations contained in the complaint lodged by respondent against petitioner as noticed herein above would not entitle the petitioner to seek for quashing of the proceedings by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. I do not find any other good ground to entertain this petition by issuing notice to respondent. Hence, petition is dismissed without issuance of notice to respondent. However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed on merits of case and trial Court shall also not be influenced by any observation made herein above while considering rival contentions and adjudicating the dispute.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ