Karnataka High Court T L Gopal vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 December, 2013Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3687/2012
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O THIMMALAPURA OORUKERE POST, TUMKUR TALUK,
W/O LATE UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O THOTADASALLI, BEHIND SEEBI SWAMY TEMPLE,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR (D).
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NEAR BYLANJANEYA TEMPLE, TUMKUR TOWN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O JIGANI BANGALORE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O VALMIKI NAGAR,
BEHIND Uco BANK,
B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR. … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.ANANDEESWARA, ADV.)
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TUMKUR TOWN POLICE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.68/A, 9TH MAIN,
10TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, GP FOR R1 R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CR. NO.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) & CJM, TUMKUR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2.
The petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are the parents, brothers and sisters
of petitioner No.1. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 was held on 11.06.2001. On account of
some differences, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are
residing separately from the year 2010. From the year 2011,
there was exchange of notices between the parties with regard
to matrimonial relationship. Finally, petitioner No.1 initiated
proceedings in M.C.No.8/2012 against respondent No.2 for
divorce. The respondent No.2 also initiated proceedings 4
against petitioner No.1 in M.C.No.3080/2012 for restitution
of conjugal rights. These two cases are pending before the
2. When the matters stood at that stage, respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint with respondent No.1-police on
28.04.2012 and the same came to be registered in
Cr.No.44/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 504 of IPC. Aggrieved by the registration of the
criminal case, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2
4. The material on record discloses that respondent
No.2 is residing separately from petitioner No.1 from the year
2010. The exchange of notices between the parties in the year
2011 and 2012 do not specify anything with regard to dowry
demand and any harassment to respondent No.2. It is only an
after thought in the complaint of the respondent No.2. Even
in the complaint, no specific allegations are made against any 5
of the accused. On the other hand a false allegations are
made against the accused. With a malafide intension to
harass the entire family members who are residing separately
from petitioner No.1 are implicated. In the circumstances, I
am of the considered opinion that this is nothing about abuse
of process of law. For the reasons state above, the following:
i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in Cr.No.44/2012 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumkur are hereby quashed.