AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ramanna, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused for quashing and set aside the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent in Crime No. 81/2002 and charge sheet filed in CC. No. 5353/2004 on the file of the II Additional C.M.M. Bangalore City, Bangalore.
The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint u/s 200 of C r. P. C. against the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The marriage of the 5th petitioner with 2nd respondent was solemnized, on 28/10/2002. The 5th petitioner was an Engineer at MICQ, Bangalore and had served more than 8 years. Thereafter, he tendered Ms resignation to his job and left India as he got appointment at Australia, on 24/01/2003. Since than he was residing there itself.
The further case of the petitioners is that after the marriage of 5 petitioner with the 2nd respondent, they lived separately at Jayanagar in Bangalore. The 5th petitioner received an appointment order at Australia and he submitted an application for grant of Passport and VISA. Alter coming to know about this fact, the 2nd respondent raised quarrel against the 5th petitioner and left the house carrying all her belongings including valuable purchased by the 5th petitioner and started living with 3rd respondent her father. By that time, the 3rd respondent filed a private complaint against Sri Subramanya Dixit for the offence punishable'' under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The said Criminal case filed by Sri Subranrtanya Dixit came to be quashed by this Court.
There after the 5th respondent was living at Australia, The 3rd respondent at the instigation of the 2nd respondent after the quashing of the said proceeding against the said Subranrtanya Dixit lodged a. complaint on 11/12/2003 stating that petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have packed the things trying to lease the house and they are ready to join the 5th petitioner at Australia. It is also further averred in the camp leant that petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 demanded. a. sure of Rs. 4,00, 000/- to take her to Australia. It is also alleged that at the time of marriage these petitioners have demanded a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and Rs. 50,000/ - was paid and another Rs. 50,000/- was paid at the time of negotiation, remaining balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be payable after the marriage. On receipt of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No. 81/2003 for the aforesaid offences. viz., 498A of Indian Penal Cede and Sacs-3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. But the trial Court referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation and to submit the report. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed suppressing the earlier charge sheet filed against one Subramanya Dixit by the 3rd respondent fox the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with this petition to set aside and quash the proceedings.
Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents and perused the records.
During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a complaint came to be filed by the 2 respondent after lapse of 11 months when the 1st respondent was in Australia and that there are several correspondence. The 2nd respondent is not ready to live with the 5th petitioner-accused. It is submit tad that the earlier complaint filed against one Subranrtanya Dixit for demand of alleged dowry ha(c) ''been (suppressed. Even the Investigating officer who has investigated the earlier complaint filed against Subramanya Dixit was also same. It is argued that the witnesses whom the respondents examined are all interested one. Therefore, there is no prima facie case made out. The cognisance has been taken and process has been issued which is liable to be quashed. Further it: is argued that the present complaint came to be filed to harass the 1st petition(c). The 1st petitioner is a retired Syndicate Bank Employee. The 2nd petitioner is an house wife, whereas the 4th petitioner is an Engineer graduate. By virtus of registration of the case, he is unable to get: an appointment, but the 3rd petitioner is a married woman living along with her husband in Chennai. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 is liable to be quashed.
In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 4555 wherein it has been held that:
Powers possessed by High Court are very wide- The very plenitude of power requires great caution in its exercise-It is decision should be based on Bound principles-Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
He has also relied on another decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sunita Alias Pitry and Anr. v. Smt. Sunita reported in 1997 Cri.L.R. 2594, wherein it has been held that:
Criminal complaint-Quashing of-Complaint of cruelty, harassment and mal treatment by wife against in-laws and husband-Complainant along with her husband admittedly living separate from in-laws since four years prior to complaint-Allegations of cruelty and criminal breach of trust were vague.
He hats also relied on another decision in the case of Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar Reported in AIR 1977 SC 1154 wherein in Head Note "B" which reads thus:;
Allegations in complaint or charge-sheet not constituting any offence - Order taking cognisance can be quashed by High Court in exercise or" inherent powers.
In another case the Delhi High Court in the case of Rupinder Kaur and Another Vs. State Govt. of (NCT) and Another, wherein it has held that:
Petitioners in-laws of complainant charged with offences under Sections 498A & 406 of Penal Code and Section 4 & 6 of Dowry-Prohibition Act-Documents falsifying averments made by the complainant in her FIR that she was harassed or maltreated by petitioners in connection with dowry demand-Further complainant admitted in her letter that she had brought all her belongings at the time of leaving her matrimonial home- Criminal proceedings against petitioners liable to be quashed.
Finally in case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, wherein the Apex Court held that:
Section 482 does not constitute any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. Namely, (1) to give effect to an order under the code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Therefore, prays for quashing of the entire proceedings.
On the other hand the 2nd respondent has filed a detailed objection to the petition contending that there is material evidence to show that even while she was living with her husband-the 5th petitioner has given physical and mental torture. To that effect she has produced the copy of. the charge sheet, in that respect the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied, on the following decisions in support of her case.
The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied on a decision reported in Arun Vyas and Another Vs. Anita Vyas, wherein it has been held that Belated complaint u/s 498A and 406 IPC-discharge-Legality-Liberal interpretation of Section 473 in case of offence u/s 498A. in favour of wife-Wife allegedly beaten by husband and in-laws and turned out of matrimonial home on 13.10.1988 and ended on 12-10-1991 u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C. and the compliant was, therefore,, times barred-Hence. in absence of explanation for the delay, the Magistrate rightly discharged the accused for the offence u/s 406 IPC-However, in respect of offence u/s 498A IPC, the previsions of Section 473 Cr.P.C. should have been liberally construed in favour of the wife-The Magistrate not having adverted to the question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case it was necessary in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the offence, his order of acquittal of the accused in respect of the offence u/s 498A IPC, held unsustainable-High court was right to that extant in setting aside the order of acquittal-Magistrate directed by Supreme Court to consider the question of limitation as explained herein Words and phrases-In the interest of Justice".,
The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 also relied on another decision reported in 1392 SC 12460, wherein it has been held thus:
The police report submitted by the investigating officer has to pass through the judicial security of a Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance- Although, the accused person has no right to be heard at that stage but in case the accused person has any grouse against the investigating officer or with the method of investigation he can bring to the notice of the Magistrate Me grievances which can be looked into by the Magistrate. When the police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has to go through the judicial scrutiny it is not open to the High court to find fault with the same on the ground that certain documents were not taken into consideration Ivy the investigating officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR and the investigation was vitiated because of the malafide on the part: of the informant and the investigating officer.
Further he has also relied on another decision reported in 2003(6) SC 863, wherein it has been held that:-'' The High court does not conclude, as it would not have that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose a cognisable offence justifying an investigation by the police officer. The conclusion of the High court that complaint was false, vexatious and frivolous is based on the material produced by the respondents. One fails to understand how without evidence the High court could have relied on this material. It is clear that the impugned order is totally unsustainable. To the credit of Counsel,, appearing fox the Respondents, it must be stated that the impugned order was not ought to be supported for the reasons given by the High Court in quashing the complaint was fairly admitted that the reasons given by the High Court, in quashing the complaint were unsustainable.
In another case reported in 1999(2) SC 182 the case of State of Kerala and Ors. v. O.C. Kuttam and Ors. etc. it has bean held that :" Power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. It is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into &. cognisable offence and therefore while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the court and at that stage it is not possible for the court to shift the materials ox to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way o the other. The High court should be loath to interfere at the threshold of thwart the prosecution exercising it inherent power u/s 482 or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be and allow the law to take its own course. Such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. Social stability and order is required to be regulated by proceeding against the offender a it is en offence against the society as a whole." Hence, prays for dismissal of the, petition.
The aforesaid citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 are not applicable to the case on hand. Of course it is a well settled law that the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC. is to be applied in a rarest of rare cases.
Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent No. 2 and Petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 5 is the husband of the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is none other than the father of respondent No. 2 and father in law of the petitioner No. 5. Of course the marriage of: petitioner No. 5 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 28.10.2002 and immediately after the marriage they went to Simla and returned on 2.12.2002. Prior to the marriage petitioner No. 5 was working as an engineer at Mice factory, Bangalore and subsequently he resigned his job and went to Australia. Since 24.10.2003 he is at Australia. The allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint that Respondent No. 2''a engagement took place on 11.8.2002. At the time of engagement an agreement was entered into between both the parties. As per the agreement Rs. 50,000/- cash was paid to the petitioner No. 2, apart from gold chain etc., After the marriage respondent No. 2 was living with her husband and in laws. But after four days of the marriage her in-laws started to visit her place and abused her in filthy language and demanded to bring balance of Rs ,.4,00,000/ -, Therefore, she ha suffered lots of mental agony. After her return from Simla she used to reside with her in-laws house and the torture was continued. The material on record discloses that before performing the marriage with petitioner No. 5 there was a proposal of marriage with on(c) Subramanya Dixit S Ravi, Respondent No. 3 filed a private complaint in PCR. No. 242/2001 against Subramanya Dixit Ravi before the Ulsoor gate P.S. which was registered as C.C. No. 14145/02 before the VI Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore and the same was referred to the concerned, police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same has been registered as Cr. No. 14/2001 against said Subramanya Dixit @ Ravi for the offences punishable u/s 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act which was challenged toy said Subramanya Dixit @ Ravi before this Court in Crl. Petition No. 4557/2003 under S�c. 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 14145/2000. This Court by its order dated 13.7.2005 allowed the criminal petition by quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 14145/2002 (PCR No. 242.2001). While quashing the proceedings this Court has observed that marriage of Pavitra was performed with another boy, therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the said Subramanya Dixit @ Ravi is to be quashed. This goes to show that prior to the marriage with the 5th petitioner a marriage proposal has been toot place with Subramanya Dixit Ravi therefore a. private complaint came to be filed u/s 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.
Respondents No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner(c) after lapse of 11 months when the petitioner No. 3 was in Australia and there are several correspondence. Since the 2nd respondent is not ready to live with the petitioner No. 5 therefore a complaint came to be filed against 1st petitioner who is the father-in-law of the respondent No. 2 and 2nd petitioner who is the wife of the first petitioner, 3rd petitioner-sister-in-law who is married and living with her husband in Chennai and 4th petitioner who happens to be the brother-in-law an engineering graduate who is unable to get appointment on account of the initiation of the criminal proceedings. When petitioner No. 1 and 2 got the visa to join their a on petitioner No. 5 who is working at Australia the respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the police. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 appeared before the trial court in CC. No. 5353/20D4 but the petitioner No. 5 has not attended before the trial court because he is in Australia. Since the petitioners came to know about the initiation of the criminal proceedings against one Subramanya Dixit @ Ravi by the third respondent on the allegations of dowry harassment u/s 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, hence they filed the present petition.
In the instant case considering the fact that the third respondent who filed a complaint against one Subranrtanya Dixit @ Ravi for an offence punishable u/s 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act. Subsequently, the marriage of respondent No. 2 i.e., the daughter of respondent No. 3 said to have been performed with petitioner N0.5. According to the contents in the complaint within four days from the marriage the in-laws have started ill treatment. Petitioner No. 3 is the sister-in-law is the resident of Chennai living with her husband, whereas petitioner No. 4-brother-in-law who is a engineering graduate. There is no specific allegations made against them to also against the parents-in-law i.e., petitioners No. 1 and 2.
The records clearly indicate that there axe no specific allegations against the petitioners in respect of ill treatment either mental ox physical torture meted out to the respondent No. 2. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex court in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2007 SCW 4555 the further proceedings initiated against petitioners No. 1 to 5 is liable to be quashed since the ingredients of Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are not attracted. The material on records does not disclose that any specific ill treatment and harassment was meted out to respondent No. 2 while she was living with the petitioners at Bangalore or when she was accompanied the 5th petitioner to Simla.
Therefore, I do not find any good reasons to continue the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners No. 1 to 5.
Accordingly, this petition. is allowed. The further proceedings in C.C. No. 5353/05 pending on the file of the II Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore City, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.