Mr Neil Viegas vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 2193 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mr Neil Viegas vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC:966
                                                          CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

                              CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6713 OF 2018

                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   MR. NEIL VIEGAS,
                        AGED 36 YEARS,
                        S/O LATE REGINALD ALPHONSUS
                        VIEGAS, RESIDING AT 'OASIS'
                        OPPOSITE CITY HOSPITAL
                        VENKAPPA GARDEN LANE,
                        MALLIKATTA, MANGALURU - 575 003

                   2.   MRS. MERLYN VIEGAS,
                        AGED 62 YEARS,
                        W/O LATE REGINALD ALPHONSUS
                        VIEGAS, RESIDING AT 'OASIS',
                        OPPOSITE CITY HOSPITAL, VENKAPPA
                        GARDEN LANE, MALLIKATTA,
Digitally signed        MANGALURU - 575 003
by SWAPNA V
Location: high     3.   MR. NEVILLE VIEGAS,
court of
karnataka               AGED 34 YEARS,
                        S/O LATE REGINALD ALPHONSUS
                        VIEGAS, RESIDING AT 'OASIS' OPPOSITE
                        CITY HOSPITAL, VENKAPPA GARDEN LANE,
                        MALLIKATTA, MANGALURU - 575 003
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
                        SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        INVESTIGATING THROUGH THE
                        SUB INSPECTOR OF OFFICER
                        POLICE, MANGALURU WOMENS
                        POLICE STATION, MANGALURU
                               -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:966
                                         CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018




     REPRESENTED BY THE
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU - 01

2.   MRS. ROSHINI PINTO,
     AGED 32 YEARS,
     W/O NEIL VIEGAS,
     D/O. PATRITIA PINTO,
     RESIDING AT "DEO GRATIAS",
     NEAR GANESH GAS GODOWN,
     KADRI ROCKS, KADRI KAMBLA
     MANGALURU - 575 004
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1
     SRI. VIKAS .M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS      IN   C.C.NO.2908/2018     (ARISING     OUT   OF
CR.NO.38/2017    OF   MANGALURU     WOMEN'S    POLICE   STATION)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III-JMFC, MANGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF IPC.

      THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.38

of 2017 of Mangaluru Women Police Station, now pending in

C.C.No.2908 of 2018, on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., (III

Court), Mangaluru for the offence punishable under Section

498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short

NC: 2025:KHC:966

'IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated

against them on the basis of the first information lodged by

respondent No.2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2

filed the first information with respondent police, alleging

commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498A,

418, 422 and 315 of IPC. It is stated that, respondent No.2

married petitioner No.1 on 11.01.2012 and thereafter, started

residing in her matrimonial house. At that time, the husband

and his relatives started demanding additional dowry and they

were ill-treating her both physically and mentally. She was

forced to abort her pregnancy and asked to make household

work. The accused were also insisting the informant to go out

of the matrimonial house and reside separately. The accused

were demanding for a flat to be purchased in the name of

accused No. 1. When respondent No.2 became pregnant, she

was sent to her parental house. Even after delivery, she was

not taken back. Therefore, she requested the police to register

the case and to initiate legal action.

3. Accordingly, the police have registered the case and

took up the investigation. After investigation, charge sheet

NC: 2025:KHC:966

came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The petitioners being

accused Nos. 1 to 3 are before this court seeking to quash the

criminal proceedings initiated against them.

4. Heard Sri P P Hegde, learned senior advocate for

Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vikas M, learned counsel

for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise

for my consideration is:

"Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the

following:

REASONS

6. Respondent No.2 as informant filed the first

information making specific allegations that she married

NC: 2025:KHC:966

accused No.1 on 11.01.2012. Thereafter, she started residing

in her matrimonial house. The petitioners being her husband,

mother-in-law and brother-in-law were ill-treating her by

demanding additional dowry and were insisting her to go out of

the house. However, when she became pregnant, she had been

to her parents' house and even after delivery, she was not

taken back.

7. The materials on record disclose that, on

18.12.2013, petitioner No. 1 issued a legal notice to respondent

No.2 alleging that, she along with her relatives assaulted him

and committed violence. However, he called upon respondent

No.2 to come back and reside with him. The contents of this

document discloses that, atleast prior to 18.12.2013,

respondent No.2 is residing separately and not residing in her

matrimonial house. The reply dated 28.12.2013 is also

produced by learned counsel for the petitioners, according to

which, respondent No.2 insisted that she will return to the

matrimonial house and lead the marital life. Therefore, there is

no dispute that respondent No.2 was residing separately prior

to December-2013.

NC: 2025:KHC:966

8. On 30.01.2014, respondent No.2 appears to have

filed a complaint with Women police station, Mangaluru, making

allegations against the petitioners alleging demand for dowry.

The endorsement issued by the Inspector of Police dated

02.02.2014, shows that the complaint was closed as the

husband undertook to look after respondent No.2 along with

the son. It is stated that thereafter, the husband and wife

resided together for a very short period. Since there was no

compatibility, she again started residing separately.

9. On 17.10.2014, respondent No. 2 filed

M.C.No.330/2014 before the Family Court, D.K. Mangaluru,

seeking restitution of conjugal rights, contending that she is

residing separately and she wants the company of petitioner

No.1. Petitioner No.1 filed a counter-complaint, seeking divorce

on the grounds that he cannot lead the matrimonial life with

respondent No.2. The Family Court, vide judgment dated

30.04.2016, allowed M.C.No.330/2014, directing petitioner

No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights, while rejecting the

counter-claim for divorce. It is stated that petitioner No.1 has

preferred M.F.A.5739/2016, which is still pending consideration

before this Court.