Debabrata Deka vs State By Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 166 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1915/2017

BETWEEN:

DEBABRATA DEKA
S/O N.N.DEKA
NO.B-209, R.R.RESIDENY,
NEAR SOMASUNDRA PALYA LAKE,
BANGALORE-560 102.
                                               ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE BY KARNATAKA
       BY BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
       BANGALORE-560 068
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     GEETA DEKA
       D/O PRAKASH TIWARI,
       W/O DEBABRATA DEKA,
       G.4, LEE WAY ENCLAVE,
       HOSPALYA MAIN ROAD,
       OPP. UJJALA FACTORY,
       BANGALORE-560 068.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R-1/STATE;
    SRI N.S. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                                2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CRIME NO.402/2016 PENDING ON III ACMM,
BANGALORE, IN THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE
STATION, DATED 11.08.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE COMPALINT DATED 04.08.2016 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE STATION,
AT ANNEXURE-B.

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

                           ORDER

FIR was lodged against the 2nd respondent alleging that

she was married to the accused in the year 2004 and after two

to three months from the date of marriage, the petitioner

subjected the 2nd respondent to cruelty both mentally and

physically and abused her in filthy language and thereafter she

started residing separately with the girl child. It is further

alleged that from past six months, the accused continued to

harass the 2nd respondent physically and mentally. It is further

alleged that the accused used to visit the school where the child

was studying and tried to take away the child and when she was

informed by the school Authorities, she had to rush to the school

to save the child and for the last two months, the accused is

coming near the house of the 2nd respondent and creating

problem. The police registered the FIR for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Taking exception to the

same, this petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the allegation made in the FIR arises out of marital

discord and also the dispute with regard to custody of the child,

however, given a criminal texture so as to falsely implicate the

petitioner - accused. He further submits that in the absence of

essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under

Section 498A of IPC, the registration of FIR is without any

substance.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the 1st respondent - State submits that the

allegation made in the FIR discloses the commission of offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC and the veracity of the

allegation requires to be investigated and at this stage, the

registration of FIR cannot be interfered with and sought for

dismissal of the petition.

4. I have examined the submissions of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

5. A perusal of the FIR indicates that except omnibus

and general allegation, there is no specific allegation as to how

and in what manner, the petitioner-accused subjected the 2nd

respondent to cruelty both mentally and physically. The

allegation that the petitioner - accused tried to takeaway the

child from the school forcibly does not constitute the commission

of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

also placed on record the copy of the judgment passed in M C

No.3131/2016 by the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court

Bengaluru, wherein the marriage of the 2nd respondent with the

accused has been dissolved on the ground of cruelty. Hence, in

the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the

commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, the

continuation of investigation would be an abuse of process of

law, since the probability of conviction of the petitioner - accused

is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.402/2016 registered

by the Bommanahalli Police Station, Bangalore is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkm