Karnataka High Court
Mr. Murari Mani vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8041 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. MR.MURARI MANI,
S/O P.MANI,
AGED 33 YEARS,
2. MR.P.MANI,
S/O PATTABHIRAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
3. MRS.SEETHA MANI,
W/O P.MANI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.302,
SAI LEELA APARTMENTS,
25TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADV., FOR
SRI.MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WOMEN'S POLICE STATION,
MYSURU CITY, MYSURU - 570 001.
2
2. MRS. H.R.RUPASHREE
@ RUPASHREE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O B.S.RANGA IYENGAR,
W/O MURARI MANI,
BOTH RESPONDENTS ARE
RESIDING AT NO.102,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BEML LAYOUT, II STAGE,
BOGADI,
MYSURU - 570 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R1;
SRI.S.S.SRINIVASA RAO, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.228/2015 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., COURT AT MYSURU IN CRIME
NO.40/2015 OF WOMEN'S POLICE STATION, MYSURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, respectively in Crime No.40/2015 registered at the instance of respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3
2. Heard learned senior counsel for petitioners, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Certain basic facts which are necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the petition are that the second respondent married petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) on 29.06.2012 at Hotel Woodlands, Bengaluru. Prior to marriage, both respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were working in United States of America. On 30.06.2012, petitioners and respondent No.2 visited Tirupati and returned to Bengaluru on 01.07.2012. The subsequent events are as under:
DATES EVENTS 02/07/12 Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 visited Mysuru-
traditional home coming of the newly married couple. 03/07/12 Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 left for honeymoon to Udaipur via Mumbai.
04/07/12 to Both Stayed at hotel Taj Lake Palace, Udaipur.
07/07/12 07/07/12 to Return to Mysuru from honeymoon and stayed at 08/07/12 Mysuru 09/07/12 to Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 left for California
USA, where Respondent No.2 was working at Oracle and living.
17/11/2012 Petitioner No.1 visits Respondent No.2 and both celebrate Petitioner No.1's birthday on 18/11/2012. 15/04/2013 to The Respondent No.2 reaches India from California, 10/05/2013 USA to attend a residential programme for women entrepreneurs from 15/04/2013 to 10/05/2013 in IIM 4 Bangalore, opts for hostel stay by paying extra fees of Rs.28,000/-.
12/05/13 Petitioner No.1 travels to India to accompany Respondent No.2 to Chennai for the purpose of H4 dependent spouse visa sponsored by Petitioner No.1. On the very same day they both left to Chennai for VISA stamping.
12/05/2013 to Both stayed at Chennai for Visa stamping at US 15/05/2013 Embassy, Chennai.
22/05/2013 Petitioner No.1 leaves for USA. 25/05/2013 Respondent No.2 leaves for Austin Texas USA on a H4 dependent visa to stay with Petitioner No.1. 12/09/2013 Respondent No.2 leaves for Sunnyvale, California to join her new job at Responsys, San Burno, California.
Sep 2013 to The Respondent No.2 lives in California and Petitioner
Nov. 2013 No.1 lives in Austin.
Nov.2013 Petitioner No.1 relocates to California by seeking a
transfer to AMD, California.
Dec 2013 to Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 lived together in
July 2014 Fostercity, Calilfornia. (161 Rock Herbor Ln, Foster
City, California)
06/01/2014 (Child) AbhayMurari's birth.
Jan 2014 Respondent No.2 lodges a police complaint in Foster
City Police Station stating that the Petitioner No.1 was trying to cancel her Green Card.
31/05/2014 Respondent No.2's mother leaves for India. 09/07/2014 Respondent No.2 calls the police and gets the Petitioner No.1 arrested. She requests the police for an emergency protection order and gets one till 19/07/2014.
10/07/2014 Petitioner No.1 was released on bail. 18/07/2014 Respondent No.2 leaves for India with the Abhay, an American Citizen.
19/07/2014 Respondent No.2 goes to her parent's place in Mysuru and starts living there.
29/07/2014 Petitioner No.1 was informed by the Foster City Police that the SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY REJECTED the case and NO CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST Petitioner No.1.
20/09/2014 Petitioner No.1 relocates to India by taking transfer to India.
04/10/2014 Petitioner No.1 sends an email to the father of Respondent No.2 informing him about his relocation and his desire to see his son. The father of Respondent No.2 replies saying that he does not want 5 to interfere in their personal matter and that he has given shelter to his daughter.
09/01/2015 Petitioner No.1 files petition for dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty in
M.C.No.195/2015 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Family Court at Bangalore.
25/02/2015 Respondent No.2 receives her Green Card (Permanent Residency) which was sponsored by Petitioner No.1 through his office AMD.
23/03/2015 Respondent No.2 files complaint in Mahila Police Station, Mysuru against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC in Crime No.40/2015.
04.06.2015 Respondent No.2 filed the complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in Crl.Misc.No.92/2015 on the file of 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore.
Nov.2017 Petitioner No.1 left to USA
4. The grievance of the second respondent is that she was constantly subjected to cruelty and ill treatment by the petitioners in the matrimonial house, which constituted the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that going by the averments made in the complaint, except for a brief period of eight days, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were all throughout residing in United States of America. All the acts of 6 alleged cruelty according to respondent No.2 have taken place at United States of America, beyond the territorial limits of this Court. Under the said circumstances, registration of FIR and consequent investigation by the respondent - police without prior sanction of the Central Government as prescribed under Section 188 of Cr.P.C, is not tenable and on this sole ground, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Secondly, she submits that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out the ingredients of offence under Section 498A of IPC; on the other hand, the circumstances of the case disclose that the petitioner No.1, himself has instituted the petition against his wife, namely, the second respondent seeking divorce on the ground of 'cruelty' and the same is pending consideration before the Family Court at Bengaluru. The second respondent has taken recourse to the reliefs under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Therefore, the instant complaint is a misuse of criminal process and on this ground also, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
7
6. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 referring to the relevant portion of the complaint submitted that specific instances of cruelty are narrated in the said complaint which clearly make out the ingredients of offence under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. All these instances have taken place within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1-Police. Hence, the provisions of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of this case and thus seeks for dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 also argued in line with the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
9. The sequence of events highlighted above would clearly disclose that prior to marriage, respondent No.2 as well as petitioner No.1 were working in United 8 States of America. It is not in dispute that the marriage was performed in Bengaluru on 29.06.2012. Immediately after the marriage, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 left to Tirupati and returned to Bengaluru on 01.07.2012. On 03.07.2012, respondent No.2 was taken for honeymoon by petitioner no.1 to Udaipur and after return from Udaipur, both of them proceeded to U.S.A. The complaint undisputedly is lodged on 22.03.2015. There is nothing on record to show that until the date of lodging the complaint, respondent No.2 had raised any grievance against the petitioners with regard to the treatment meted to her in the matrimonial home. On the other hand, her grievance seems to be in relation to the instances that have taken place when the parties were residing in U.S.A. The complainant is specific in her narration that after her return to India while she was residing with her parents house at Bhogadi, Mysore, her father-in-law namely, petitioner No.2 called her over phone and demanded her father to purchase an apartment for the purpose of petitioner No.1, and that time, petitioner No.2 retorted 9 saying that respondent No.2 had filed a case against petitioner no.1 in U.S.A. These averments even if accepted as true, do not make out the ingredients of offence under Section 498A of IPC and cannot be construed as the circumstances constituting the offence in India. That apart, the alleged demand to purchase an apartment, cannot be considered as a demand for "dowry" as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Under the Act, dowry is defined as under:
"2. Definition of 'dowry'. - In this Act, "dowry"
means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
None of the allegations made in the FIR attract the above definition, as a result, there is no basis for the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
10
10. Coming to the facts constituting the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, it is trite that in order to constitute an offence under this Section cruelty meted out to victim should be of the nature as explained in the section as under:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means -
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
11. In the backdrop of the above definition, if the allegations made in the FIR are perused, it is clear that all the alleged instances of ill treatment have taken place beyond the limits of respondent No.1-Police. Under the said circumstances, even if assuming that there are such instances of cruelty, no prosecution can be initiated by 11 respondent no.1-Police in respect of cruelty which is alleged to have taken place beyond the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior sanction of the Central Government as prescribed under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the prosecution instituted against the petitioners has to be held as illegal and abuse of the process of Court. That apart, respondent No.2 having failed to make out the ingredients of offence under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, FIR registered against the petitioners cannot be sustained. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR and the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*/hkh.