Criminal Petition No. 6713 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 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 Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka 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, MANGALURU - 575 003 3. MR. NEVILLE VIEGAS, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O LATE REGINALD ALPHONSUS VIEGAS, RESIDING AT 'OASIS' OPPOSITE CITY HOSPITAL, VENKAPPA GARDEN LANE, MALLIKATTA, MANGALURU - 575 003 (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 …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018
Legal Reasoning
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
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. VIKAS .M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018 '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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018 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: R E A S O N S 6. Respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information making specific allegations that she married - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018 10. In the meantime, on 21.07.2017, the present complaint came to be filed alleging commission of the offence as stated above. Apparently, the said complaint was filed after the judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed in M.C.No.330/2014 directing petitioner No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated that in spite of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties never resided together. Petitioner No.1 challenged the same before this Court by filing the MFA. In light of all these developments, the allegations made in the first information and the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer is to be taken into consideration. 11. In the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, there is reiteration of the allegations made by respondent No.2, which was made in her complaint dated 30.01.2014, which was subsequently withdraw by her. It is pertinent to note that the allegations made against the petitioners are pertaining to the year 2012-13 and are subsequently. Even though the allegations regarding demand for dowry was made, the charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 490A of IPC. From the records, it is clear that the complaint was filed on 21.07.2017, even though - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018 respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are residing separately since 2013. 12. Learned senior advocate placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Achin Gupta v/s State of Haryana and Another1 and Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others v/s State of Telangana and Another2, in support of his contention that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint which prima facie discloses that an attempt is being made to pressurize the petitioners, involving the family members of the husband. I do find considerable force in the contention taken by learned senior advocate for the petitioners as there is inordinate delay of about five years in filing the complaint. Moreover, there was withdrawal of the earlier complaint. It is also to be noted that respondent No.2 was insisting for restitution of conjugal rights and was successful in getting decree in her favor. In spite of that, the decree is not executed as the MFA is still pending consideration. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances highlighted above, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:966 CRL.P No. 6713 of 2018 is only with an intention to pressurize them to agree for the terms. Since I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is in abuse of process of the Court and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.38/2019 of Manaluru Women's Police Station, pending in C.C.No.2908/2019 , on the file of the learned JMFC (III Court) Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24