Sri. Manish M Guthedar vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 74 Kant

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.8016 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

SRI.MANISH M GUTHEDAR,
S/O MALIKAYYA,
AGED 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5/E/3,
FIRST PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
                                         ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
        THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
        HIGH COURT ANNEX BUILDING,
        DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
        BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.      SMT.DEEPA S.,
        W/O MANISH M GUTHEDAR,
        D/O S.SHIVALINGAPPA,
        AGED 35 YEARS,
        R/AT FLAT NO.306,
        'AMOGH', V C N APARTMENT,
        3RD MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE,
                            2


     BEML LAYOUT,
     BENGALURU - 560 079.
                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI.H.P.GANESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
IN C.C.NO.5154/2012 ON THE FILE OF VII A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU, FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND
SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT VIDE ANNEXURE - C.


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

                        ORDER

The petitioner has been charge sheeted for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

alleging that the defacto-complainant is the legally

wedded wife of the petitioner-accused and in the said

wedlock a child was born on 01.12.2006 and she was

subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically and

she was demanded to bring dowry from her parental

home. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate

for the aforesaid offence is impugned in this petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that FIR was lodged by the defacto-

complainant with an ulterior motive to wreak

vengeance against the petitioner-accused and with

revengeful intent, after petitioner filed the petition for

dissolving his marriage with the defacto-complainant

on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He further

submits that the marriage of petitioner-accused with

the defacto-complainant has been dissolved by the

Family Court on 30.10.2019 on the ground that the

decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has not been complied by

the defacto-complainant.

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State and learned

counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the charge

sheet material discloses the commission of the offence

alleged against the petitioner-accused and at this

stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate

does not warrant any interference and sought for

dismissal of the petition.

4. I have examined the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is undisputed that the marriage of the

defacto-complainant was solemnized with the

petitioner-accused on 11.05.2006 and in the said

wedlock, a child was born on 01.12.2006. It is also

undisputed that the petitioner filed M.C.No.3453/2010

for dissolving his marriage with the

defacto-complainant on the ground of cruelty and

desertion and thereafter the defacto-complainant filed

a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.847/2011. The

respondent No.2 contrary to the allegations made in

the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights,

lodged the FIR which clearly implies that the dispute

between the parties arises out of marital discord,

however given a criminal texture.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed on record the judgment passed by the

Prinicipal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in

M.C.No.5268/2016 dissolving the marriage of the

petitioner-accused with the defacto-complainant on

the ground that the defacto-complainant has not

complied with the decree for restitution of conjugal

rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and

same has attained finality. In view of the same,

continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioner-accused would be an abuse of process of

law, since probability of conviction of the petitioner-

accused is remote and bleak. According, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

1. Criminal Petition is allowed.

2. The impugned proceedings in

C.C.No.5154/2012 pending on the file of VII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RKA