SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr Sanjeeb Parida vs State Represented By on 30 January, 2019

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
6

different 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/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation