Sri Sivaraman V vs Renuka Gowthami M
2022 Latest Caselaw 3917 Kant

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.6633/2020

BETWEEN

SRI.SIVARAMAN V.,
S/O VALLIAPPAN S.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
NO.95, SAI VALLI ILLAM,
VETRIVELAVA NAGAR,
POOCHIYUR,NSN PALAYAM,
COIMBATORE - 641 031,
PRESENTLY AT BANGALORE.
                                              ... PETITIONER

[BY SRI.HONNAPPA, ADVOCATE]


AND

SMT.RENUKA GOWTHAMI M.,
W/O VALLIAPPAN V.,
D/O MANOHARAN T.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1297, 1ST FLOOR,
25TH 'C' CROSS, 27TH MAIN ROAD,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR - 2,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
                                          ... RESPONDENT

[BY SRI.SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE]
                                  2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.   PRAYING   TO    QUASH     THE   COMPLAINT    IN
CRL.MISC.NO.92/2020 FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE M.M.T.C. - VI, BENGALURU.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner calls in question proceedings in

Crl.Misc.No.92/2020 registered by respondent No.2 invoking

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short). The

petitioner is accused No.4, brother of accused No.1, husband of

the complainant-respondent.

2. The respondent-complainant and the brother of

petitioner - accused No.1 get married on 19.05.2016. Later, it

transpires that the relationship between accused No.1 and

complainant gets strained, due to which, the proceedings are

instituted by the respondent - complainant under Section 12 of

the said Act.

3. The petitioner is the brother of accused No.1 in the said case. In the affidavit filed while registering the said case, the narrations against the petitioner are as follows:

"14. The complainant submits that, on finishing the wedding reception, the complainant and respondent no.1 along with complainant's parents went to the parental house of complainant at HSR Layout. During a conversation regarding the wedding and reception event, complainant's parents as elderly people requested respondent no.1 not to be so rude towards their daughter and to have control over his anger which is good for the well being of their newly married life. This words of complainant's parents enraged respondent no.1 and he started screaming at complainant's parents and at the peak of anger, he broke a Wash Basin at complainants' parental house, consequences of which complainant's mother's leg was injured. Respondent was never apologetic for his behaviour.

19. The complainant submits that during the year 2016, respondent no.4 had completed his B.E degree and had joined Course at Bengaluru and then subsequently he joined a company at

whitefield as electronic engineer and often used to come and stay with complainant and respondent no.1 at their matrimonial house. During such stay, respondent no.4 often used to taunt the complainant stating that she is from a lower caste and that respondent no.1 could have got a better match from their caste if he had not married complainant. On many occasions when complainant cooked and served food to respondent no.4, he used to throw the food in front of complainant and yelled at complainant stating her family is uncultured and have not even taught complainant to cook properly, whereas in their caste the girls are strictly taught by their parents to do all house hold chores and cooking and to serve the in laws properly in their matrimonial house.

20. The complainant submits that the respondent no.4 used to pass comments about complainant's parents, brother and relatives. Respondent no.4 used to criticize the rituals and practices relating to food, clothing, Pooja rituals etc and also interfered in every household decision that was taken by complainant and respondent no.1. Respondent no.4 influenced respondent no.1 as

instructed by respondent no.3 and instigated respondent no.1 against complainant. Respondent no.4 visited the matrimonial house of complainant everyday to know what was happening at matrimonial house and would inform everything to respondent no.3. Based on the information given by respondent no.4, her respondent no.3 used to call respondent no.1 and instigate him against complainant, which resulted in misunderstandings and fights between complainant and respondent no.1. Further there are occasions where respondent no.4 asked respondent no.1 to get money from complainant to meet his lavish expenses, which was refused to be borne by his parents."

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not reside

with the couple but was working elsewhere and only used to

visit the house of the couple. On these visits, it is alleged that

the petitioner used to instigate husband - accused No.1 to

behave in a rude manner torturing the complainant. Except

such omnibus allegation against the petitioner nothing else is

alleged. In the teeth of such omnibus and vague allegation, if

further proceedings are permitted to be continued against the

petitioners, it would without doubt be an abuse of the process of

the law while the complaint may be against other accused.

Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, finding no

allegation in the complaint, permitting further proceedings

would result in miscarriage of justice. In the light of the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of SHAFIYA KHAN ALIAS

SHAKUNTALA PRAJAPATI V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER1,

wherein it has held as follows:

"15. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated

2022 SCC OnLine SC 167

by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra."

4. Therefore, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. Proceedings pending in Crl.Misc.No.92/2020, stands

quashed qua the petitioner.

It is made clear that the observations made in the course

of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner, the same

shall not bind or influence the criminal Court in the conduct of

further proceedings against any other accused.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK