IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2913 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SANJAY KUMAR S/O. JAYAPALAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. SMT. MOHAN PREMA, W/O. JAYAPALAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SRI JAYAPALAN S/O. LATE M. VELLAI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 4. SMT. GAYATHRI D/O. SRI JAYAPALAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.1181, 8TH CROSS, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 043.
5. SRI. SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASAN, S/O. LATE M. VELLAI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 6. SRI SELVAM @ SELVARAJ, S/O. LATE M. VELLAI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO. 5 AND 6 ARE R/AT NO.1102, D.J. HALLI MAIN ROAD, PERIYARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 005. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560 043.
2. SMT. GAYATHRI, S/O. SANJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT RAJESHKUMAR ILLAM, 4TH ‘A’ CROSS, BRUNDAVAN LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 016. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: UMESH B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANASWADI POLICE, BANGALORE, UNDER CR.NO.0011/2014 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them in Crime No.11/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Respondent No.2 married petitioner No.1 on 11.04.2010. It is alleged that two years after the marriage, respondent No.2 deserted petitioner No.1 and hence a petition was filed by petitioner No.1 seeking divorce under Section 13(i)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.1834/2013. Said petition was filed on 25.4.2013. During the pendency of the said petition, respondent No.2 filed the above said complaint alleging that on 11.1.2013, in the night, all the petitioners drove the respondent No.2 out of the house and she was not allowed to enter the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.5 and 6 are total strangers to the family. Though in the complaint it is stated that they are the uncles of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 has not even furnished their address or place of their residence, which indicates that baseless allegations are levelled against the them only to foist a false case in support of the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the matrimonial Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 however has argued in support of the action initiated against the petitioners contending that all the petitioners joined together and drove out respondent No.2 from the matrimonial house as a result, she is constrained to live in her parents house and that the matter is under investigation, hence there is no case for quashing the complaint.
6. On going through the records, it is noticed that except stating in the complaint that accused Nos.5 and 6 joined with other accused persons and drove her out of the house, the circumstances narrated in the complaint do not suggest as to when accused Nos.5 and 6 came to the house of the petitioners No.1 to 4. The complaint is silent with regard to the time of the alleged incident. The records indicate that much prior to the lodging of the said complaint, the matrimonial proceedings were initiated against respondent No.2. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made against the petitioners appear to have been made only to bolster up the stand taken up by respondent No.2 before the matrimonial Court. Insofar as petitioners No.1 to 4 are concerned, there are specific allegations in the complaint that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty and harassment in the matrimonial house, but insofar as petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, the allegations made against them are not specific and bereft of any details. The manner in which petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are implicated in the alleged incident indicate that with malafide intention, without any basis, accused Nos.5 and 6 are included in the alleged charge. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any specific allegation constituting the ingredients of Sections 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, in my view, the initiation of criminal proceedings against accused Nos.5 and 6 is ulteriorly motivated and hence to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings initiated against them deserves to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Petition filed by petitioners No.1 to 4 is dismissed. Petition filed by petitioners No.5 and 6 is allowed. FIR registered against petitioners 5 and 6 (accused Nos.5 and 6) in Crime No.11/2014 is quashed. The investigation shall proceed only against petitioners No.1 to 4(accused Nos.1 to 4).
bkp Sd/- JUDGE