Karnataka High Court

Pramod R S vs State Of Karnataka Through ... on 2 June, 2023

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                           1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023         R
                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1511 OF 2023
BETWEEN:

PRAMOD R. S,
S/O SURESH N,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.10, KRISHNA RAJ LAYOUT,
J.P.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 76.
                                              ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. YASHASWINI S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
    LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION,
    REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT BUILDING
    BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 . LAKSHMI M.R,
    W/O MR. PRAMOD R. S,
    AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
    D/O RAJESH M. P,
    R/AT 1ST FLOOR, #18/1
    'HARIHARA NILAYA' MN JOIS ROAD,
    MYSORE,
    KARNATAKA - 570 005.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY., HCGP FOR R-1)
                               2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR
REGISTERED     BY    THE   RESPONDENT      NO.1 POLICE IN
CR.NO.61/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VIII
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A, 307, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT.


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.05.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                             ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.61 of 2022 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 and 506 of the IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief germane

are as follows:-

The petitioner is the sole accused and the 2nd respondent is

his wife, the complainant. The two get married on 19-04-2021. It

is alleged that on certain torture, the 2nd respondent/ complainant

leaves the matrimonial house on 14-08-2022. The petitioner then

causes a legal notice upon the 2nd respondent seeking amicable

settlement and resolution of the dispute between them for the

purpose of dissolution of marriage. The said notice was caused on

13-10-2022. Later, the wife registers a complaint against the

petitioner/husband on 1.12.2022 which becomes a crime in Crime

No.61 of 2022. It is the registration of crime against the husband is

what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Smt. S. Yashaswini, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the wife has registered the crime as a counterblast to the legal

notice that the petitioner sends, seeking amicable settlement for

dissolution of marriage. There are no ingredients that would

become offences under Section 498A of the IPC. In the light of the

husband sending a notice for divorce and the immediate

registration of crime thereafter, the crime loses its significance.

She would submit that this is the law laid down by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.201257 of 2019 and

connected case decided on 18-04-2023 and therefore, the FIR

should be quashed on the sole ground that the crime is registered

after receipt of a notice seeking dissolution of marriage.

5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would submit that investigation has just commenced; there

are grave allegations against the petitioner/husband for offences

punishable under Section 498A and 307 IPC and, therefore, the

proceedings should be permitted to be continued.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

7. The issue now lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner and

the 2nd respondent are the husband and wife who got married on

19-04-2021. It is the averment in the petition that on several

allegations the wife leaves the matrimonial house on 14-08-2022.

The petitioner then on 13-10-2022 causes a legal notice upon the

wife wherein he projects himself to be suffering from mental

trauma at the hands of the wife and seeks resolution of matrimonial

dispute amicably and dissolution of marriage by mutual consent

within 15 days. The narration in the notice is that the wife should

desist from filing a false claim and initiating malicious proceedings

against the husband or the family members. What is latent

becomes patent on a perusal of the notice. The notice dated

13-10-2022, insofar as it is germane, reads as follows:

"Under instructions from our client, Mr.Pramod R.S., S/o Mr.Suresh N., aged about 32 years, Residing at #10, Krishna Raj layout, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore - 560 076, this notice is issued to you in the following terms.

1. At the outset, it is placed on record that our client has instructed us to issue this Legal Notice with an intention to resolve the differences/dispute between you and our client amicably without precipitating the matter and anticipating amicable resolution of the dispute. Therefore, our client reserves liberty to explain the facts in detailed urge the all grounds in future correspondences or the proceedings if any commenced.

2. We are instructed to state that the marriage between you and our client was solemnized on 19th April 2021 in Jain Bhavan, Devan's Raod, Lakshmipuram behind Hardwick High School, at Mysore and there are no children out of the wedlock. Since you have not made any efforts or evince any interest to engage with our client and his family members and started

quarrelling with our client and his family members, our client and his family members suffered humiliation at your hands. Because of your quarrelsome and aggressive conduct and consistent interference by your parents the relationship between you and our client is deteriorate. You never took any responsibility as a dutiful wife and on the other hand, you indulged in laziness, overspending, doubting about his chastity and quarrelsome behaviour with our client and his family members. You have also threatened our client that our client and his parents will be implicated in false case in case our client does not accedes to your demand of leaving his parents and shift to Mysore.

3. The marriage between you and our client is irrevocably broken down because of your adamant and quarrelsome conduct and our client suffered severe mental trauma and agony. You left the matrimonial home in the month of August 2022 and you are living with your parents at your parents' home from August 2022.

4. We are instructed that the marriage between you and our client is irretrievably broken down and there are no chances of reconciliation. To avoid protracted / precipitous proceedings, our client is willing for resolution of the dispute amicably without making any allegation against each other and by mutual consent. Our client has instructed us to cause this notice notifying that our client is ready and willing to make sincere efforts to get the matrimonial discord amicably resolved through mutual consent and additionally call upon you to desist from filing/lodging false and malicious complaints or allegations against our client and his family members if any with an intention to harass them.

Therefore, we hereby call upon you to communicate your willingness to seek resolution of the matrimonial discard amicably and dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this notice and also call upon you to desist from filing any false

complaint/malicious proceedings against our client and his family members. If you choose to file any false complaint or commence any proceedings in spite of the receipt of this notice, our client will be constrained to defend the same and initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate court at your risk as to cost and consequence therefore.

You are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of this Notice."

The apprehension of the petitioner was that the wife would register

a complaint against him. Therefore, he causes a legal notice

seeking amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage. The wife

then registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 01-12-

2012. Since the entire issue has triggered from the complaint, the

complaint requires to be noticed and is extracted hereunder for the

purpose of quick reference:

"gÀªÀjUÉ,

¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ®QëöäÃ¥ÀÄgÀA ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.

¬ÄAzÀ,

²æÃªÀÄw ®QëöäÃ.JA.Dgï PÉÆÃA ¥ÀæªÉÆÃzï .Dgï.J¸ï 24 ªÀµÀð, £ÁªÀÄzÉÃªÀ ¹A¦, ªÀÄgÁp #18/1, ºÀjºÀgÀ ¤®AiÀÄ, JA.J£ï.eÉÆÃ¬Ä¸ï gÉÆÃqï ªÀÄjªÀÄ®è¥Àà ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÉÆ.£ÀA.8951569640.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß ¥Àw £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸ÉPÉÆlÄÖ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð.

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆj£À ªÁ¹ ªÉÄÊ.¥ÀÄ.gÁeÉÃ±ï JA§ÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.04.2021gÀ°è PÉÆqÀUÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ±À¤ªÁgÀ¸ÀAvÉAiÀÄ ªÁ¹ ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï.J£ï gÁPÀÄAqÉ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ¥ÀæªÉÆÃzï.Dgï.J¸ï JA§ÄªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ±Á¸ÉÆÛçÃPÀÛªÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ©.E ¥ÀzÀ«ÃzsÀgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À SÁ¸ÀVÃ PÀA¥À¤AiÉÆAzÀgÀ°è ¸Á¥ïÖªÉÃgï EAf¤AiÀÄgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ JA.©.J ¥ÀzÀ«ÃzsÀgÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄªÀjUÉ MAzÀÄ PÀwÛ£À ZÉÊ£ÀÄ, ¨ÉæÃ¸ï¯ÉÊmï ºÁUÀÄ MAzÀÄ GAUÀÄgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ £ÉPï¯É¸ï, 4 §¼É, 2 eÉÆvÉ dÄªÀÄÄQ, 2 eÉÆvÉ GAUÀÄgÀ, 1 ¯ÁAUï ZÉÊ£ï ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1/2 PÉ.f AiÀÄµÀÄÖ ¨É½îAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆj£À eÉÊ£ï ¨sÀªÀ£ï£À°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÖgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ±À¤ªÁgÀ¸ÀAvÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, C°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÉÝªÀÅ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À eÉ.¦.£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄ.£ÀA.:10, PÀÈµÀÚgÁd ¯ÉÃOmï, PÀ¯ÁåtÂ ªÀiÁåUÀßªÀiï mÉPï ¥ÁPÀð ºÀwÛgÀ, ¸ÉÊAiÀiÁ¢æ ¯ÉÃOmï, ¥ÁAqÀÄgÀAUÀ £ÀUÀgÀ, 7£ÉÃ ¥sÉÃ¸ï£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝªÀÅ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÉÆßqÀ£É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ C£ÉÆåÃ£ÀåªÁVzÉÝªÀÅ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÆäÃPï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ F «ZÁgÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÉÆäÃPï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃgÀ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ, £À£Àß£ÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÉ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÁUÀ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÆß ºÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃqÀ CªÀjUÉ K£ÀÆ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ºÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è PÀÄrAiÀÄ®Ä ±ÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. C®èzÉ PÀÄrzÀÄ §AzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ EµÀÖ«®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ £À£Àß£ÀÄß vÀÄA¨Á PÉlÖzÁV £ÀqÉ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÀÄrzÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÉÆÃqÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV vÀÄA¨Á »A¸É PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. C®èzÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¥À¨ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁgïUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ »A¸É ªÀiÁr, £À£ÀUÉ MAzÉgÀqÀÄ ¨Áj MvÁÛAiÀÄ¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV ªÀÄzsÀåªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ ¸ÉßÃ»vÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÁqïìð DqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄgÀ eÉÆvÉ C¸À¨ÀsåªÁV £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ C¨sÁå¸À ¸ÀºÀ EzÉ. F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£ï CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀgÀªÀgÉÆqÀ£É ºÉÃ½PÉÆAqÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¤Ã£ÉÃ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹gÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ DUÀ¸ïÖ 14 gÀAzÀÄ ¤£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è MAzÀÄ ¥sÁm è ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ. E®è JAzÀgÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ¯ÉèÃ EgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr, £À£Àß£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ZÉÊ£ï¤AzÀ PÀwÛUÉUÉ ©VzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß¥ÀlÖgÀÄ. C®èzÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß vÀÄA¨Á ºÉÆzÀÄÝ, UÉÆÃqÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀzÉ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ wgÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀ£ÁqÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£ÁzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DUÀ¸ïÖ 15 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆj£À £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ©lÄÖ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß vÀAzÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è MAzÀÄ ¥sÁèmï PÉÆr¸ÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¤Ã£ÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÁUÀ CªÀgÀ JzÀÄj£À¯ÉèÃ £À£ÀUÉ PÀ¥Á®PÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ £À£Àß PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »¸ÀÄQ £À£Àß£ÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß¥ÀmÁÖUÀ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ §AzÀÄ ©r¹zÀgÀÄ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV aQvÉì PÉÆr¹zÁUÀ, ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÉàöÊ£À¯ï PÁqïðUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ E£ÀÆß aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÉÝÃ£É. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀªÉAzÀÄ AiÉÆÃa¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä¤zÉÝ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£Àß£ÉßÃ ¨ÉA§°¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ EµÉÖ¯Áè ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtPÁÌV zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉPÉÆlÄÖ, £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÉÆ®è®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß¥ÀlÖ £À£ÀUÉ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄªÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÃ½PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÃÉÛ £É. £Á£ÀÄ EzÀÄªÀgÉ«UÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ PÁzÉ. DzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß ¥sÉÆÃ£ï PÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÀ ¹éÃPÀj¸ÀÄwÛ®è. EzÀjAzÀ ¨ÉÃ¸ÀgÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ F ¢£À §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É."

(Emphasis added)

The narration in the complaint is about several instances of torture

by the husband against the wife, both mental and physical. The

wife also narrates that the husband attempted to take the life of the

wife by strangulating her. It is said that she has taken treatment

for the injury of the spinal cord as well, due to the blows suffered

from the hands of the husband.

8. The matter is at the stage of investigation. Therefore, the

papers of investigation were summoned for perusal. On a perusal at

the papers of investigation and statements available therein would

clearly indicate the ingredients of the offences so alleged. There

are communications from the Hospital sought by the Investigating

Officer which indicate the treatment. Prima facie, I find the offences

being met, they are to be investigated. At this stage, quashment of

proceedings against the petitioner/husband would not arise on the

ground that the complaint is registered immediately after receipt of

the legal notice caused by the petitioner. Section 498A of the IPC

reads as follows:

"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or

the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

There is some purpose in the aforesaid provision. The statements

recorded during investigation clearly indicate that those ingredients

are prima facie met. Section 307 of the IPC is also alleged against

the petitioner. The complaint clearly makes out ingredients of the

offence under Section 307 of the IPC which deals with attempt to

murder. Strangulation and giving blows on the back is what is

alleged in the complaint. If these ingredients are to be ignored and

brushed aside merely because the complaint is registered

immediately after receipt of the notice of divorce or amicable

settlement for dissolution of marriage, it would lead to a disastrous

effect. As in a given case, if the allegations of torture are made

over a period of time, say a year or two or even in the immediate

past of the complaint and 'the husband issuing a notice for

divorce simultaneously or immediately before the complaint,

will not and can by no stretch of imagination result in the

complaint rendering itself insignificant'. It would require

investigation. It would be altogether a different circumstance if the

complaint does not even make out ingredients of the offence so

alleged or does not lay down the necessary foundation for alleging

the offences in a given case.

9. It is no doubt true that there are cases after cases where

members of the family are dragged into the web of crime by the

wife while registering the complaint invoking Section 498A of the

IPC. The offences are justified, in some cases and offences are in

abuse of the process of law, in some cases. Therefore, it is to be

considered on a case to case basis. There cannot be a declaration of

law as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

once the divorce notice is sent by the husband, the complaint

registered by the wife thereafter loses its significance. If this

contention is accepted, it would have a chilling effect on all the

complaints. Therefore, this submission is noted only to be rejected,

as it is fundamentally flawed.

10. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel

for the petitioner rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in

Crl.P.No.201257 of 2019 the reasons rendered by the co-ordinate

Bench are as follows:

"06. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present case, the respondent No.2 lodged the written complaint, which carries four pages. The complaint contains several allegations against the petitioners. However, till 25.12.2018, she has not lodged any complaint against the in-laws. In the complaint there is specific allegation about assault made out against all the petitioners. However, it appears that the allegations are omnibus and absurd in nature and the said allegations are not sufficient to invoke the provisions as stated supra. Unless, there are no allegations made out against each petitioners independently, it cannot be construed that the petitioners have committed the offence. Regard being had to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the husband of the respondent No.2 had filed divorce petition on 17.12.2018 at Solapur Family Court. As a token of retaliation, the respondent No.2 filed complaint against all the petitioners assumes greater significance. Therefore, the criminal case filed by the wife, in respect of cruelty, dowry harassment against the husband and in-laws loses its significance, in case the complaint is made, after receiving the divorce notice from her husband. Hence, it is a fit cases to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings."

(Emphasis in original)

The decision of the co-ordinate Bench holding that criminal case

filed by the wife in respect of cruelty and dowry harassment against

the husband and in-laws would lose any significance in case the

complaint is made after receiving the divorce notice from the

husband, defeats the very object of Section 498A of the IPC, or

even complaints made under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The purpose in introducing

chapter XX-A bringing in Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was

with the objective to prevent torture to a women by her husband or

by the relatives of the husband. It was added with a view to punish

such people aforesaid, who would meet out harassment or torture

to the wife to satisfy their unlawful demands of dowry.