Vinod Eligeti vs The State Of Karnataka By
2023 Latest Caselaw 3390 Kant

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                           BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5638 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

1 . VINOD ELIGETI
    S/O. RAJANARENDAR ELIGETI,
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

2 . ELIGETI RAJANARENDAR
    S/O LATE. VEERAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

3 . SMT. ELIGETI SHASHIKALA
    W/O. RAJANARENDAR ELIGETI
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

   ALL ARE R/AT NO. 2-7-587,
   EXCISE COLONY, SUBEDARI,
   HANUMAKONDA,
   WARANGAL - 506001.
   TELANGANA STATE

                                             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M.R.C. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
    MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
    BENGALURU,
                                  2


    REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
    HIGH COURT BUILDING,
    BENGALURU-560001

2 . SMT. LAXMI CHOUDHARI
    W/O. VINOD ELIGETI,
    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
    R/AT NO. 10/11, 3RD CROSS,
    9TH A MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
    BTM LAYOUT,
    BENGALURU-560076

                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. GEETA R.SHINDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAJENDRA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 )


     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.17505/2016, (CRIME NO.175/2016) REGISTERED BY
MICO LAYOUT POLICE, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT AND
CASE IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE CITY.



     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 14.06.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3


                             ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by husband and his

parents who are arraigned as petitioner Nos.1 to 3

respectively seeking quashing of proceedings pending in

C.C.No.17505/2016 for the offences punishable under Section

498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondent No.2-complainant who is the wife of

petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint on 04.03.2016 alleging that

her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on

29.11.2012 and immediately after marriage, she joined the

marital home of petitioner No.1 and the in-laws of respondent

No.2 were harassing her thereby demanding dowry on the

count that their son has obtained Masters in the United States

of America and often indulged in using abusive language. It is

further alleged in the complaint that during brief stay at her

in-laws house, she was humiliated everyday by taunts and

abuses and the petitioner No.1 was often using abusive

language. She often carried a fear that petitioner No.1-

husband may assault and hurt her physically and when she

met her parents in the month of January, 2013, her parents

had deliberations with petitioner No.1-husband about his

abusive behaviour towards respondent No.2-complainant. It is

further alleged in the complaint that petitioner No.1's

aggressive behaviour even continued at US and his family

members, brother and sister-in-law were also constantly

harassing respondent No.2-complainant and she had to rush

to Hospital on account of one of the incident where she had a

threat to her life. Based on these set of serious allegations, a

complaint came to be lodged on 04.03.2016.

3. The petitioners herein are seeking quashing of the

proceedings. To substantiate that the complaint lodged by

respondent No.2-complainant is frivolous and the same is

intended to harass the petitioners, petitioners have placed on

record the divorce proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 at

San Mateo County Court, California. Referring to these

significant details, petitioner No.1 has sought for quashing of

the proceedings by contending that the marriage is dissolved

and a decree for dissolution of marriage is passed on

20.07.2016 by San Mateo County Court, California and

pursuant to dissolution of marriage, petitioner No.1 who had

agreed to pay divorce equalization payment has complied the

order of the County Court and has issued a cheque to

respondent No.2-complainant for a sum of 2,964 US dollars by

way of a cheque which is encashed by the respondent No.2 on

08.08.2016 which is evident from statement of account of

respondent No.2 with Bank of America.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners

reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition and referring

to all these relevant documents would contend that this

complaint lodged by respondent No.2-complainant is an

afterthought and the same is intended to harass petitioner

No.1 who is residing at United States and petitioner Nos.2 and

3 who are parents of petitioner No.1 are nowhere concerned

to the vague allegations made in the complaint. Therefore,

referring to the divorce proceedings and payment of alimony

as determined by the County Court, California, he would

contend that if the proceedings are allowed to be continued,

the same would amount to abuse of process and therefore,

request this Court to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed on

record the divorce proceedings initiated by respondent No.2-

complainant before the Family Court, Bengaluru. Referring to

the order sheet in M.C.No.1204/2016, he would point out that

the divorce petition filed by respondent No.2-complainant

seeking dissolution of marriage is also dismissed by the Family

Court, Bengaluru by taking cognizance of the divorce

proceedings which has stood concluded before San Mateo

County Court, California, USA in Case No.FAM0129321. In

support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance

on the following judgments:

1) Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others - (2008) 14 SCC 1

2) Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor - (2013) 3 SCC 330

3) Smt. R.Usha and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another - Crl.P.No.5387/2021 Dtd: 13.06.2022

4) Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others - (2022) 6 SCC 599

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-

complainant, however, would vehemently argue and contend

that her client is not at all aware of the proceedings at the

United States of America and she was not served with the

notice and therefore, respondent No.2 had no occasion to

contest the divorce proceedings. She would further

vehemently argue and contend that there is sufficient material

to proceed against petitioner No.1-husband and her in-laws

i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, at this juncture, the

proceedings cannot be quashed as the allegations are to be

substantiated only by way of full-fledged trial before the

learned Magistrate.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners

and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

8. The material placed on record depicts a very sorry

state of affairs. This Court would find that respondent No.2

has virtually misused Section 498(A) with an intention to

harass her husband and in-laws. The case clearly

demonstrates the frustration of respondent No.2 who after

having met her waterloo in matrimonial proceedings at United

States has unfortunately further enmeshed the husband in a

frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be

abuse of process of law.

9. The material also indicates that respondent No.2 is

highly educated and she is resident of United States and when

the proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage were pending

before Family Court at United States, she comes down to India

and lodges a complaint. Section 498(A) of IPC is meant to

protect helpless women who are often subjected to torture by

husband and in-laws. But the present case on hand clearly

depicts misuse and exploitation of provisions of Section

498(A). Respondent No.2 has succeeded in misusing Section

498(A) and she has used the provisions of Section 498 of IPC

as a tool for her vengeance only to harass petitioner No.1.

10. The material placed on record clearly demonstrates

that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are found to be

residing at United States of America at the relevant point of

time and if respondent No.2 was residing at America and she

has contested the divorce proceedings, this Court is unable to

understand as to how she could have lodged a complaint

alleging that her in-laws have also abused and tortured her

and have made dowry demands when marriage was

solemnized in 2012 and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2

moved to United States. The respondent No.2 is found to be

guilty of filing a complaint even against the in-laws who are

residing at India and not in United States of America.

11. After dissolution of marriage, the petitioner No.1-

husband in terms of order passed by the Family County Court,

California was required to make payment to respondent No.2-

complainant. He has deposited the cheque and the same is

encashed by respondent No.2-complainant on 08.08.2016,

while the present complaint is lodged on 04.03.2016, the bank

receipt clearly indicates that the cheque was encashed by her

and the amount was credited to her account at Bank of

America. The cheque is dated 08.04.2016 and the amount

indicated is 2,964 US dollars and the cheque also reflects that

this payment is made towards divorce equalization payment.

12. I would find some force in the submission made by

learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No.2 has

lodged a frivolous complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court in

catena of judgments has held that frustrated litigants should

not be permitted to vent their frustration by invoking

jurisdiction of the criminal court. On reading the complaint,

this Court would find that the allegations are bald, vague and

if broadly considered, are found to be incapable of providing

sufficient facts to constitute an offence under Section 498(A).

The contention of counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that

she was not aware of the divorce proceedings at County Court,

California, is found to be totally misleading.

13. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing

for petitioners, the divorce proceedings at County Court,

California, Column 2 clearly indicates that proceedings were

heard by notifying respondent No.2-wife and column 2 also

indicates that she has contested the proceedings.

14. Even on bare reading of the complaint, this Court

would find that the allegations are found to be too vague. If

respondent No.2's marriage was solemnized in 2012, the fact

that she has lodged a complaint in 2016 alleging dowry

demands made in 2012 would give an indication that all these

allegations are made only to further humiliate and harass

petitioner No.1-husband who has succeeded in securing a

divorce at County Court, California. She has also suffered an

order at the hands of the Family Court, Bengaluru, where the

Family Court has taken cognizance of the proceedings which

has stood concluded and respondent No.2 has also accepted

the divorce at United States of America by receiving the

amount paid towards divorce.

15. It is important to note while instances of misuse

exist, it does not diminish the significance of addressing

domestic violence and protecting genuine victims. Focus

should be on directing balance between providing protection to

genuine victims and safeguarding the rights of the accused.

In the present case on hand, false evidence is being framed.

The respondent No.2-complainant is placing reliance on wound

certificate issued by Department of Redwood City Family

Medicine. This incident is dated 08.05.2014 and she has

undergone treatment for eye injury on account of fall. It is

borne out from the records that respondent No.2-wife has

unfortunately tried to frame petitioner No.1-husband by

making frivolous allegations against him.

16. As stated supra, the allegations in the complaint

are found to be too vague. Not a single specific incident

relating to time, date and month is indicated in the complaint.

It is borne out from the material on record that respondent

No.2-complainant is an independent lady, highly educated and

employed at United States. This is a classic case where

respondent No.2-wife has misused Section 498 of IPC, in all

probability, to extract more money from petitioner No.1-

husband. On reading of the complaint, this Court would also

find that there is casual reference of the in-laws names

without allegation of active involvement. Therefore, this Court

is also of the view that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are

unfortunately roped into this controversy.

17. If all these significant details are taken into

consideration, this Court is of the view that respondent No.2

cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal court

and if permitted, it would be clear case of abuse of process of

law. This Court is not inclined to gloss over or ignore these

significant details. This is a fit case where the facts on record

warrant interference at the hands of this Court. This Court is

inclined to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Even

if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted in

totality, no case is made out. The allegations are found to be

too vague. The medical certificate issued by a Hospital of

United States is now sought to be produced. This medical

certificate does not refer to any incident in the complaint.

Therefore, I am of the view that the proceedings pending in

C.C.No.17505/2016 are liable to be quashed.

18. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed;

(ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.17505/2016 on the file of the VI Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed;

(iii) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA