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.8485/2015 BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI VARMA, S/O LATE RAJAMANIKYAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF # 46 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 97 2. SMT. INDRANI, W/O LATE RAJAMANIKYAM, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDENT OF # 165/8, GKVK ROAD, THINDLU, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU – 97.
3. SMT. SHANTHI, W/O KALAI ARASU.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. SRI KALAI ARASU, S/O ARASU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF #15/1, OLD AGE HOME ROAD, NEAR LAXMAIYYA LAYOUT, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU – 43.
5. SMT. BHARATHI, W/O THANGADURAI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
6. SRI AVINASH, S/O THANGADURAI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
PETITIONERS 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF # 165/8, GKVK ROAD, THINDLU, VIDYARANAYAPURA POST, BENGALURU – 97.
7. MRS. USHA MARY, W/O ANTHONY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
8. MR. ANTHONY, S/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
PETITIONERS 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF # 71/11, 7TH CROSS, SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALURU – 97.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, R T NAGARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560032.
2. SMT. VANITHA, D/O SHANMUGHASUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55/1, 3RD CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560032.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1, R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.383/2012 PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.16201/2015 AND ALSO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. Respondent No.2 married petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 29.4.2007. She lodged a private complaint against petitioners herein alleging cruelty, ill-treatment, abuse and assault by the petitioners. The said complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 342, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that after the marriage, petitioners herein subjected respondent No.2 to repeated acts of cruelty and ill-treatment and she was abused and assaulted in the matrimonial home.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the proceedings filed before the Matrimonial Court between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 would submit that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home of her own accord and even after issuance of the notices, she did not rejoin accused No.1 and hence accused No.1 filed a petition before the Family Court at Bengaluru in M.C.No.1600/2008 for divorce on the ground of desertion. In the said proceedings, the parties were referred for mediation and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 arrived at a mutual settlement, which was made into a part of the decree in M.C.No.1600/2008. It is recorded in the memorandum of settlement that petitioner No.1 did not take any dowry in cash or kind and all the jewellery that was given at the time of marriage was in the custody of respondent No.2. At the time of alleged settlement, Criminal Petition No.278/2010 was pending before the VIII ACMM. Respondent No.2 even withdrew the allegations made in the said proceedings. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the instant complaint are utterly false and bereft of any truth or substance.
5. Further the learned counsel has pointed out that in view of the aforesaid settlement, respondent No.2 though rejoined accused No.1, she left the matrimonial house after 45 days and accused No.1 was constrained to file a petition before the Matrimonial Court in M.C.No.866/2011 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Since the petition was presented before expiry of two years from the date of desertion, the application filed by petitioner No.1 under Section 13(1)(ib) was dismissed. However, the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 28.7.2015, which clearly demonstrates that respondent No.2 herself was guilty of inflicting cruelty on petitioners. Under the said circumstances, the charge- sheet laid against the petitioners being false, baseless and malafide, is liable to be quashed.
6. Disputing the above submissions, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 has referred to the relevant portion of the allegations made in the private complaint and has emphasized that the said allegations coupled with the prima facie material collected during investigation are sufficient to make out a triable case against petitioners and thus sought to dismiss the petition.
7. I have bestowed my careful thought to the submissions made at the bar and have carefully scrutinized the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 29.4.2007. In the Criminal proceedings instituted by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 entered into a settlement. In the said settlement, respondent No.2 has unequivocally stated that due to some misunderstanding, the parties were residing separately and in view of the aforesaid settlement they have decided to live together. In the memorandum of settlement, it is stated that petitioner No.1 has not taken any dowry from respondent No.2 in cash or kind. In the wake of these assertions, the allegations made in the complaint that respondent No.2 was subjected to ill- treatment and harassment in the matrimonial home, on account of failure to satisfy dowry demand cannot be accepted.
9. That apart, the proceedings in M.C.No.866/2011 clearly indicate that respondent No.2 had suffered a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is stated that no appeal is filed or pending against the said order, as a result, the judgment and decree passed by the Matrimonial Court has attained finality. In the said judgment, it is observed that respondent No.2 deserted petitioner No.1 on 19.6.2010. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the private complaint that she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment in the matrimonial house also cannot be given any credence. Even otherwise, a reading of the complaint shows that except making bald and general allegations therein, prosecutrix has not cited any specific instance of cruelty by any one of the petitioners herein. On the other hand, the findings recorded by the Matrimonial Court reveals that respondent No.2 herself inflicted cruelty on petitioners. When the material on record discloses that respondent No.2 did not reside in matrimonial house since 19.6.2010, there is no propriety whatsoever in the allegation made by the prosecution that she was subjected to cruelty and assault in the matrimonial house immediately before the submission of the private complaint. All these circumstances therefore go to show that solely out of spite and vengeance, the proceedings are instituted against the petitioners without there being any prima facie material to substantiate any of the allegations made against the petitioners. In the wake of these facts, the prosecution launched against the petitioners being false and ulteriorly motivated, cannot be sustained.
10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.16201/2015 are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE MD