Karnataka High Court Shri Venugopal G R vs The State By on 21 March, 2014Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRL.P.No.1368 /2014
SHRI VENUGOPAL G.R,
S/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED 33 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.491,
GROUND FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK,
I “F” CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 079. … PETITIONER (BY SRI KRISHNA MURTHY .G, ADV.,) AND
1. THE STATE BY
` W/O MR.VENOGOPAL.G.R,
I FLOOR, INDRA BUILDING,
MASJID ROAD, BHOOPSANDRA,
BANGALORE – 560 094. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SMT.P.C.SUNITHA, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME No.312/2013 ON 09.11.2013 BY THE -2-
RESPONDENT No.1 BASED ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND REGISTERED AS CR. No.17743/2013 ON THE FILE OF VIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Sections 498A, 504 AND 506 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The accused in FIR No.312/2013 registered by Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, pending on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in Crime No.17743/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC., has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the said proceedings.
2. Admittedly, petitioner and 2nd respondent – complainant are husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 05.01.2009. Thereafter, a male child is born in the wedlock and he is aged about 3 ½ years. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant, in order to pursue her post graduation studies in M.S. Ramaiah Dental College, is residing separately. It is further stated that the -3-
petitioner went and created commotion near her house on 08.11.2013. The complaint would read like this: ” We got married 5 years ago and I am having 3 ½ years old son, my husband left me around 2 years ago and he is staying with his parents since then. I am with my mother and brother.
I had been tortured since 4 years for divorce, he has sent me divorce notice through an advocate a months ago. I didn’t agree for divorce, hence he and his family started harassing me and threatening me for life. His family is supporting him.
I am studying MDS in M.S.Ramaiah
Dental College, he come to college and insulted me with vulgar words and threatened me, hence I had called police and they warned him. But on 8/11/13, around 9.15 p.m, he came to house and knocked the door. I saw him he was drunk and shouted with bad words hence I didn’t open the door. When the neighbours asked him about it, behaved rudely with them also. He was tell loudly that he could kill me and my brother. I am not able to tolerate his torture and scared to live for each moment because of him. I will be very grateful to you, if can take serious action and file a complaint against him.” Based on this complaint, FIR is registered by 1st respondent – Police on 09.11.2013. column No.10 of FIR reads as under:
“F zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ FUÉÎ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀÄªÀAvÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ FUÉÎ 02 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.11.2013 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 09-15gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ UÀAqÀ ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ §AzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ DzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆlÖ zÀÆgÀÄ EvÁå¢”
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondent No.2. 1st respondent`s counsel, who read over the complaint, submitted that there is no reference to allegation for demand of dowry in the complaint. However, without there being any reference to the allegation regarding dowry harassment, it is seen that the Police in a highhanded manner, has registered FIR in 312/2013 as if the complaint is regarding allegation of dowry harassment under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC. On going through the complaint as well as FIR., it is clearly seen that the Police have gone a step ahead of the allegations made in the complaint by 2nd -5-
respondent and has tried to frame the petitioner herein for an offence, which is not alleged by the 2nd respondent herein. It is clear from the material on record that the complaint, which is registered in Crime No.312/2013 is nothing but, handiwork of the Police, which is not supported by the averments of the complaint, the sum and substance of which, is culled out as above.
4. In that view of the matter, this Court find that there is no substance in the FIR., which is registered pursuant to the complaint and is liable to be quashed. While doing so, it is pertinent to note that as stated by learned counsel for both the parties, petitioner herein, husband, has already filed a petition in M.C. No.368/2014 before the Family Court, Bangalore under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights with his wife, who is 2nd respondent herein and the said matter is still pending investigation. It is stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – complainant that the notice is duly served in the said proceedings. Hence, -6-
considering the age of the parties and the fact that their child is 3½ years old, continuation of proceedings in Crime No.312/2013, which is false and frivolous, is not advisable for the happy married life of petitioner and 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, parties are advised to seek reference of their matter for mediation in M.C. No.368/2014 and try to save their marriage. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceeding in FIR No.312/2013 registered by 1st respondent – Sanjay Nagar Police, Bangalore, now pending on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in Crime No.17743/2013 is hereby quashed.