Karnataka High Court
Saravanan D vs G Nandhini Rani on 14 January, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6246 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. Saravanan.D
S/o late D.Dhamotharan
Aged about 35 years
R/at Flat No.206
MARS Enclave, D.B.Sandra
Bengaluru City
Pin-560097.
2. Parameshwari.C
W/o late D.Dhamotharan
Aged about 58 years
R/at Flat No.206
MARS Enclave, D.B.Sandra
Bengaluru City
Pin-560097.
Both are permanently residing at
Flat No.29/A, Jyosna Apartment
Padmavathi Nagar
Velachery, Chennai
Tamilnadu-600042. ... Petitioners
(By Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty.H, Advocate)
AND:
-2-
1. G.Nandhini Rani
W/o D.Saravanan
Flat No.206, Maras Enclave
Doddabommasandra
Vidyaranyapura Post
Bengaluru-560097.
2. State of Karnataka
By its Vidyaranyapura Police Station
Bengaluru City-560097
Rep.by SPP High Court. ... Respondents
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Advocate for R2
Service of notice to R1 is d/w v/o dtd: 14.01.2020)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the FIR relation to
Cr.No.205/2016 pending on the file of the IV ACMM
Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 506, 498A, 323, 504 of
IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, and etc.,
This criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR in crime No.205/2016 pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 323, 504 of IPC and also under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. -3-
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Additional SPP for respondent No.2-State.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 got married on 31.08.2014. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage some dowry has been paid and an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has been spent for the purpose of marriage. It is further alleged that knowing fully well that respondent No.1 being conceived, the petitioner No.1-accused used to abuse with filthy language and used to harass the complainant and also used to assault. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in crime No.205/2016.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the relationship of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. When there was misunderstanding between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 and as she was not ready to hear the words of petitioner No.1, subsequently, she left the house of the petitioners and -4- as such, without there being any alternative remedy, petitioner No.1 approached the Family Courts and filed the divorce petition on 17.06.2016.
5. It is his further submission that after coming to know about filing of the said petition as a counter blast only with an intention to threaten the petitioners, a false complaint has been registered. It is his further submission that if really the petitioners have assaulted and ill-treated, definitely she could have filed the complaint immediately after such incident. No previous complaints have been registered in this behalf. It is his further contention that even though the entire complaint, if it is taken the ingredients of Section 323, 506 and 498A and other provisions are not attracted. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP vehemently argued and submitted that though the divorce has been taken place, it will not take away the offence committed by the -5- petitioner-accused. On going through the material, it indicates that petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have ill-treated and harassed the respondent No.1 and as such, the complaint has been registered. It is his further submission that at this premature stage, it cannot be held that there is no material. Still the investigation has to be completed and the charge sheet has to be filed, then the real facts will come before the Court. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. On going through the records it is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 are the husband and wife and even it indicates that subsequently because of some misunderstanding a divorce petition has been filed on 17.06.2016 before the Family Court at Chennai. As could be seen from the records, even before the Family Court -6- respondent No.1 has remained absent and she has been placed exparte and taking into consideration material placed on record, the I Additional Family Court, Chennai by order dated 31.08.2017 has granted divorce to petitioner No.1 the same has not been challenged before any Court. Even as could be seen from the records, the divorce petition was came to be filed on 17.06.2016 and on the very next day i.e., on 18.06.2016 at about 6.30 p.m., the present complaint has been filed. Even though in the complaint, it has been alleged that the family members used to abuse and ill-treat and harass respondent No.1, there were no complaints or any panchayath held in this behalf earlier to it. In the complaint itself she has contended that on 16.06.2016, the pregnancy has been aborted. But the divorce petition has been filed on 17.06.2016 and the present complaint has been filed on 18.06.2016. By taking into consideration of the factual matrix of the case, I am of the considered opinion that only with an intention to overcome the divorce petition and to influence and to give a threat, the present petition has been filed. That -7- there are no serious materials so as to come to the conclusion that the ingredients of the alleged offences have been proved.
9. In the light of discussion held by me, it appears that the complaint has been filed by the abuse of process of law to use pressure tactics.
10. In the light of discussion held by me as stated above, the petition is allowed and the FIR in crime No.205/2016 pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 323, 504 of IPC and also under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb