Karnataka High Court

Sri. Anil Rego S/O Late Kalisth ... vs Smt. Roma Rego W/O Ani Rego on 21 June, 2022

Bench: V.Srishananda

                          -1-




                                 CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100769 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:

SRI. ANIL REGO S/O LATE KALISTH REGO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT SUPREME CLOTH SHOP,
BOMBAY CHAWL,
DANDELI AND SIRSI,
PIN- 581401.

                                            ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.SHINDHE GEETA RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SMT.ROMA REGO W/O ANI REGO,
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

2.   KUMAR KEVIN S/O ANIL REGO,
     AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
     MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
     SMT.ROMA REGO,

     BOTH ARE R/AT AUGUSTIN JUJE RODRIGUES,
     BURUD GALLI, KHANAPUR,
     BELAGAVI DISTRICT- 591302.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 R2 MINOR R/BY R1)
                               -2-




                                     CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PENDING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR IN CRL.MISC. NO.36/2020
UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ALL OTHER ACTIONS PURSUANT
THERETO AND PASS OTHER/FURTHER ORDERS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records on admission.

2. The present petition is filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

"To quash the pending domestic violence proceedings registered before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur in Crl.Misc. No.36/2020 under Section 12(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur vide Annexure-A and B and all other actions pursuant thereto and pass

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

other/further orders in the circumstances as deemed fit and proper."

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

Petitioner is the husband of 1 s t respondent and

father of 2 n d respondent. Marriage took place in the

year 2011. According to the petitioner, respondents

left the matrimonial home in the year 2014 and

ultimately filed a divorce petition on 16.06.2020.

After filing the divorce petition, petition under

Section 21(1) of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act') is also

filed by the respondents seeking the following

prayer:

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the relief(s) claimed therein and pass such order or orders other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances of the case for protecting the aggrieved person from domestic violence and in the interest of justice."

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

4. In the petition filed by the wife, it is

contended that herself and her husband were

working as Lecturers at Sirsi and thereafter

differences arose on account of the greedy nature of

her husband for the money. It is also alleged that

her husband is having soft corners towards his

sister-in-laws Smt.Sunita as Sunita's husband was

residing at Dubai. It is further contended that the

differences between the husband and wife increased

over a period of time and efforts made by the elders

for reunion got succeeded and both of them agreed

to reside at Dandeli and started to live in Dandeli.

However, the bad habits of her husband continued

and one day in December, her husband assaulted her

badly and snatched the gold ornaments and thrown

her out of the house along with 2 n d respondent and

he also gave a life threat that if they visit her

husband again, they would be thrown to Kali River.

With no alternative respondents started living in

Khanapur in her parental house. Left with no

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

alternative, she has approached the jurisdictional

Magistrate with the petition under Section 12(1) of

the Act.

5. Notice of the said petition is issued and

petitioner did not appear before the Court and later

on he has engaged the services of an advocate and

he is contesting the petition. Thereafter, present

petition is filed with the following grounds:

• The Respondent No. 1 herein has clearly resorted to abuse of process of law by using the legislations intended to protect the rights of women and provide for their basic necessities, to avenge the Petitioner by initiating this proceedings. The Respondent No. 1 has not approached the Hon'ble Magistrate with clean hands and complete facts.

• The Respondent No. 1 has made bald and vague allegations against the Petitioner, which do not only lack the substance but also gives no hint to the timeline of the occurrences. The Respondent has by not mentioning the

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

timeline is misleading the Hon'ble Magistrate court of the actual facts and preventing the judicious determination of the case. There is huge time gap between the dates of separation to the date of filing this Petitioner, due to which deliberately the Respondent has not mentioned the date of separation in her petition.

• The initiation, registration of the Complaint by the learned magistrate court on the report of protection officer and further proceeding is impugned herein and are illegal void ab initio and liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

• The above petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs. The petitioner has not stated when the cause of action arose. The narration in the petition does not revel what is the nature of violence alleged to have suffered by the petitioner and when. The petition is also barred by limitation. The petitioner and respondent are residing separately

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

since 2016 and they have neither cohabited nor in contact with each other. It is also pertinent that after the child birth thought the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 resided in same residence, there was no relation of husband and wife existing between them.

• Even if it is assumed that the facts stated to be true, the maximum punishment that is attracted, is one year and given the cause of action that is alleged in the complaint, the complaint ought to have been filed within a period of one year in terms of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and admittedly, the case having been registered in the year 2020 and the offences alleged are of the year 2011 and 2012 and both the parties are separately living since 2016, the complaint is hopelessly barred by time and could not have been entertained. On similar analysis, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in J. Srinivas v/s G.Dhanalakshmi, in Cri.Pet.

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

No.2419/2009, has quashed the Proceedings initiated under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Copy of the Judgment is produced as Annexure- E.

• It is submitted that the complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 1 / petitioner as a counterblast to the matrimonial petition which has been filed by the petitioner herein before the learned Principal Civil JUDGE and JMFC Court at Sirsi which has numbered as M.C.No.45/2020.

• The petitioner herein have been supporting the Respondent No. 1 and child with Monthly Expenses for living when the respondent was staying with her parental house.

• The petitioner submit that the bear reading of the complainant by respondent No. 1 Vide Annexure -A, there are no specific allegation which have been attributed against the petitioner and bare reading of the compliant and petition before Learned magistrate Court do not prima facie

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

attract the offence which have been lugged against the petitioner.

• The petitioner have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated that the complaint against the petitioner is totally without any valid basis or foundation. The petitioner states that even if all the allegations incorporated in the complaint is taken to be true, even then no offence could be made out against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors: (2013) 9 SCC 245 at paragraph 24 was cited to plead that it is the paramount duty of the court to protect innocent person.

"The word "vexatious" means "harassment by the process of law", "lacking justification" or with "intention to harass". It signifies an action not having sufficient grounds, and which therefore, only seeks to annoy the adversary. The hallmark of a vexatious proceeding is that it has no basis in law (or at least no

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

discernible basis); and that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be, its only effect is to subject the other party to inconvenience, harassment and expense, which is so great, that it is disproportionate to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant, and that it involves an abuse of process of the court. Such proceedings are different from those that involve ordinary and proper use of the process of the court."

• This Court in State of Karnataka v. L.

  Muniswamy,           (1977)            2        SCC      699
  observed     that    the        wholesome             power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding

- 11 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.

• It is submitted that this is classic case of misuse of the criminal forum to settle the scores with a personal grudge and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has often condemned such proceedings which has to become a common scenario more particularly in matrimonial disputes.

• The allegation made by the respondent against the petitioner are no specific allegations or specific over act is attributed to the petitioner, which goes to show that the allegations are bald and baseless only with a view to falsely implicate, intimated and subjugate the petitioner.

- 12 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

• The petitioner submits that there was no demand of dowry or any harassment, nor the petitioner has retained the gold ornaments presented to the respondent in marriage. The petitioner has maintained meticulous expenditure incurred from marriage and has cleared all the dues on his own and has never sought any financial help from the

intentionally has left her clothes in husband matrimonial home with the intention of dragging the petitioner to face false claims of the respondent No.1.

• The petitioner is law abiding respectable citizen and he is innocent of commission alleged offence yet the petitioner have been falsely implicated by the respondent No. 1 to wreck vengeance.

• The     petitioner        never            ill       treated      or
  harassed                   the                       respondent

No.1/Complaint, demanded or accepted the dowry, etc the petitioner is not greedy of dowry as alleged and on

- 13 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

contrary the petitioner have financially borne expenditure for the respondent No. 1 and child thinking that the respondent would returned back to matrimonial home of petitioner.

• The petitioner submits that the allegations made in the Vide Annexure -

B are all on a vague which is determined to harass the petitioner the entire allegation in the petition are false, and the Respondent No. 1 ought not to have registered the case against the petitioner. Since the allegation does not constitute the ingredients of the Domestic Violence against the petitioner, it is very easy to rope any persons into the case like nature.

• The fact the allegations made by the respondent No. 1 regarding the dowry harassment are all false and it is important to note that the Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint of domestic violence before protection officer after laps of 10 years and there is no specific allegation against any family member stating that the family members of the

- 14 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

petitioner has treated the respondent No. 1 with violent manner, hence the petition need to be quashed.

• The petitioner and respondent no.1 is highly qualified person. Both of them are employed and economically independent. Petitioner is Lecture in Government PU College and the respondent is teaching and pursuing PHD in the Kolapur University. The respondent No. 1 is competent to understand the complications of law and other facts prevailing in the case. Hence the respondent No.1 has filed the false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are staying separately since 2016.

• The Petitioner craves the leave of the court to urge additional at the time of arguments.

6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the

petition, Smt.Geeta Shindhe vehemently contended

that the respondent No.1 on her own left the

matrimonial home and has filed a divorce petition

- 15 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

which is pending before the appropriate Court and in

order to coerce the petitioner to yield to her illegal

demand, she has chosen to file a petition under the

provisions of the said Act and therefore, the same

has resulted in abuse of process of Court and thus

sought for quashing of the complaint.

7. The 1 s t respondent is represented by Sri

Sadiq N.Goodwala and 2 n d respondent is the minor

who is represented by the 1 s t respondent. Sri Sadiq

N.Goodwala opposed the petition grounds.

8. In view of the rival contentions, perused

the material on record.

9. Admittedly, the relationship between the

parties are strained. According to the petitioner, 1 s t

respondent left the matrimonial home along with the

2 n d respondent in the year 2014. No efforts are

made by the petitioner herein seeking restitution of

conjugal rights. There is a specific allegation in the

complaint that there was a panchayath held by the

- 16 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

elders and well wishers and as per the said

panchayath, parties were directed to reside in

Dandeli and for a brief period, respondents also

joined the petitioner and started living in Dandeli.

Whether at all, there was any harassment as is

alleged by the 1 s t respondent or not, are all matters

that are to be thrashed out before the appropriate

Court. Mere filing of the petition under Section 12(1)

of the Act itself would not be a ground to quash the

same that too by exercising power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch at this stage no offence

whatsoever is made out either by the respondent

No.1 or any grounds are made out by the petitioner

to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Further, the allegations and counter allegations as is

found in the complaint filed by the 1 s t respondent

and the grounds urged in the present petition are all

matters which requires evidence of the parties to be

recorded. Under such circumstances, this Court

- 17 -

CRL.P No. 100769 of 2022

cannot hold a mini trial at this stage and quash the

proceedings. Hence, the following:-

ORDER The petition is dismissed. However, the observations made by this Court in this order shall not influence the rights of the parties in the pending proceedings before the learned Magistrate in Criminal Misc.No.36/2020.