IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2112 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Sri. William Anoop Nicodemus, S/o. Late Daniel Raj Mohan Nicodemus, Aged about 40 years, R/at Flat No.G1104, Tower-3, Daffodils Block, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Devarabesinahalli, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 037. …Petitioner (By Sri. N.B. Sudarshan, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By HAL Police Station, Bengaluru.
Rep. by its SPP, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Ms. Sanghmitra Das, D/o. Kedarnath Das, Aged about 38 years, R/o New Vijaya Building, East Station Road, P.O. – Agarpara 24 Parganas, WB – 743177.
Currently staying at:
Flat No.G1104, Tower-3, Daffodils Block, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Devarabesinahalli, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 037. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1; R2 – served – unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.54735/2016 filed by 1st respondent police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of IPC pending on the file of the LXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Court, Bengaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
2. The substance of the accusations against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the complainant were known to each other since 2008. They were living together as husband and wife. The petitioner herein promised the complainant to marry her in the year 2014. He was interfering in the personal life of the complainant and started giving her mental and physical torture in the year 2015. He abused and scolded the complainant and pushed her head on the wall and thus subjected her to physical torture.
3. According to the prosecution, since the year 2011, the complainant and the petitioner herein were living together at house bearing No. G-1104, Tower-3, Daffodil Block, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Deverabesinahalli, Bellandur Post, Bengaluru.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract any of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The materials produced along with the charge sheet would at the most indicate that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were in living-in-relationship and there was no marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were husband and wife, the provisions of Section 498A of IPC do not get attracted. Further, in so far as the accusations under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC are concerned, these allegations are vague and are not supported by any reliable material. It is not clear from the charge sheet as to when the alleged offence has taken place. No material has been produced in support of these charges. The main object and motive of respondent No.2 to resort to criminal proceedings is to compel the petitioner to marry her. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are vexatious and are calculated to settle scores with the petitioner and thus seeks to quash the proceedings.
5. The learned SPP-II, however, has argued in support of the impugned charge sheet and would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the materials collected by the Investigating Agency prima-
facie constitute the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 of IPC. Hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Respondent No.2 has not addressed any arguments and has not controverted the assertions made in the petition.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. In so far as the charge sheet under Section 498(A) is concerned the prosecution appears to have been proceeding on the assumption that the petitioner herein and the respondent No.2 have been living together as husband and wife. But, the unimpeachable documents produced by the petitioner at Annexures-J and K indicate that at no point of time the petitioner and respondent No.2 represented themselves as husband and wife. The General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner herein dated 27.09.2013 clearly recites that the said Power of Attorney is executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2 herein, wherein she is described as “friend” of the petitioner and he has authorized her to purchase property on his behalf. Annexure–K is the Lease Deed dated 30.06.2014. The said Lease Deed is said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2. Even in the said document no where respondent No.2 is described as wife of the petitioner. Assuming for the sake of argument, respondent No.2 was his wife, there was no reason for the petitioner to execute the Lease Deed in favour of respondent No.2. All these circumstances clearly indicate that at no point of time, respondent No.2 was considered as the wife of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, provision of Section 498(A) of IPC does not get attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the said charge in my view prima-facie cannot be sustained.
9. In so far as the offences under Sections 323 and 504 are concerned, the allegations made in the charge sheet appear to be vague and are not supported by any cogent and convincing material. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident had taken place in the year 2011 and 2015. The charge sheet is silent as to the place of the alleged occurrence. No supporting material is produced to show that during the occurrence respondent No.2 has sustained any injuries or that she has taken any action against the petitioner. The manner in which the alleged allegations are leveled against the petitioner indicate that solely with a view to compel the petitioner to marry respondent no.2 and to compel him to agree to her terms, the criminal process is seen to have been set in motion by respondent No.2. The averments made in the complaint at the earliest instance, do not contain any allegations attracting the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC. All these circumstances clearly indicate that the allegations made against the petitioner are manifestly attended with malafide and are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioner and therefore, cannot be allowed to be continued lest it would degenerate into a tool for harassment of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings pending against the petitioner in CC.No.54735/2016 on the file of the LXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV