1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1580/2014
BETWEEN:
1. MR SANJEEB PARIDA
S/O BHABARANJAN PARIDA,
AGED 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.96,
NAGARAJA NILAYA,
2ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.8, 5TH CROSS,
GANGAMMA LAYOUT,
GUDDADAHALLI,
NAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
R.T.NAGAR POST, HEBBAL,
BANGALORE-560 024.
2. MR. BHABARANJAN PARIDA
S/O NAGEN CHANDRA PARIDA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ANLADUBA,
RAIRANGPUR POST,
MAYURBHANJ,
ODISHA.
3. MRS. JHARNA PARIDA
W/O BHABARANJAN PARIDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2
RESIDING AT ANLADUBA,
RAIRANGPUR POST,
MAYURBHANJ,
ODISHA. … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HEMANTH S, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY
HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560 095.
2. MRS. SANGEETA KAPAT
W/O SNJEEB PARIDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BRAJALALCHAK,
DAKSHINCHAK, BHABANIPUR,
PURBA MEDINIPUR, MURSHIDABAD,
HALDIA-721 654,
WEST BENGAL. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I S PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1
SRI B RAVINDRA, ADV. AND SRI AJAY KUMAR, ADV.
FOR R2 – ABSENT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CR. NO.14/2014 ON THE COMPLAINT OF
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DISMISS THE SAME
PENDING BEFORE THE C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard Sri. Hemanth S, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned SPP-II
appearing for respondent No.1. Sri.B.Ravindra,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not
addressed any arguments.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent No.2 married petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 on 05.03.2012. After marriage,
respondent No.2 started residing with petitioner No.1
at Rairangpur Bazar, Mayurbhang District, Odisha
State.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint
against the petitioners on 24.01.2014, alleging that
she and petitioner No.1 were classmates and on the
consent of their parents, their marriage was
4
solemnized as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. After
the marriage, she started to reside with the
petitioners for twenty days. Thereafter, she went to
Ahemadabad. In the complaint, it is alleged that at
the time of marriage, father-in-law and mother-in-law
demanded car, gold worth Rs.15,00,000/- and
Rs.50,000/- cash. It is further alleged that, since she
did not bring the car, the 1st petitioner started
torturing her and demanding her to bring new car,
otherwise, to bring amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to buy a
car.
4. Even though, it is stated in the complaint
that at the time of marriage, father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the complainant demanded for car,
gold worth of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- cash,
but there is no averments whatsoever, in the
complaint that whether the said articles were given by
the complainant either to her husband or to her in-
5
laws at the time of marriage or at any time
subsequent thereto.
5. On the other hand, the copy of the decree
passed by the Additional District Judge, Haldia, Purba
Medinipur in Matrimonial Suit No.26/2016 indicates
that, the complainant and petitioner No.1 have
obtained a divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. In the said judgment, it is
mentioned that, the complainant and petitioner No.1
filed a petition on 02.02.2016 stating therein that
after solemnization of their marriage, they started
living as husband and wife in the house of petitioner
No.2 at Rayrangpur Village Bazar, Mayubhang District,
Orissa State. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born
namely Sasmit Parida. Further, recital of the said
judgment which is relevant for purpose read as under:
“In course of their joint living it was
found that their habits, tastes are
6different and despite best endeavour, it
was not possible for their joint living and
since 07.09.2013 they started living
separately.”
These averments are contrary to the allegations
made in the complaint and the FIR, wherein it is
stated since that the complainant has not procured
the car as demanded by the petitioners, she was
tormented in the matrimonial house. Even otherwise,
the allegations made in the complaint are vague and
not definite. There is no averment as to whether the
complainant has paid any part of dowry to the
petitioners. It is also not forthcoming as to when the
alleged demand was made by petitioner No.1 for car,
as stated above. on the other hand, the judgment
passed by the Additional District Judge, in Matrimonial
Suit No.26/2016 indicates that, till 07.09.2013, the
parties were residing together and even a son was
7
born to them. In the light of these facts, the allegation
made against the petitioners appears to be a ruse to
foist a criminal case against the petitioners, after the
dissolution of her marriage, apparently with some
ulterior motive .
6. That apart, the allegations made against
the petitioners do not make out the offence under
Sec.498A of IPC. The section reads 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 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
8
(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.
7. In the instant case, the only allegation
made against the petitioners is that they demanded
her to bring car. What is the cruelty meted out to her
for not satisfying this demand is not specified. This
allegation, therefore, even if uncontraverted, does
not bring the case within the ambit of Sec.498A of IPC
or Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As a result,
the prosecution of the petitioner being illegal and an
abuse of the process of the Court, is liable to be
quashed to secure the ends of justice.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, petition is
allowed.
9
The proceedings initiated against the petitioners
in Cr.No.14/2014 on the file of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JS/-