Allowed

Rajesh G v. Smt Impana Naik K

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023CRL.P/8057/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the prosecution under Section 498-A IPC. Relying on unexplained delay and lack of specific instances of mental cruelty, the court held the complaint amounted to normal family wear and tear.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution against petitioner in C.C. No.217/2020 for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC quashed.

Rajesh G Vs Smt Impana Naik K — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8057 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJESH G S/O. AITHAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ’SRI DURGA NILAYA’ KRISHNANAGARA HOUSE CHIKMUDNOOR POST PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA -574203. NOW TEMPORARILY RESIDING AND WORKING AT USA

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESH CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. IMPANA NAIK K W/O. RAJESH G AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS JEEVIKA, BAIPASS ROAD, TENKILA, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 201.

¶14

WORKING AT STATE BANK OF INDIA PLOT NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD (NEAR INDIAN GARAGE) SHANTHALANAGAR ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF DAKSHINAKANNADA WOMEN POLICE STATION PUTTURU SUB-DIVISION DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 203.

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. WANEEDA M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.217/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him in C.C No.217/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶27

An action to prosecute the petitioner was initiated by the respondent No.1 who informed the respondent No.2 on 05.01.2020 about a cognizable offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. She claimed that she was given in marriage to the petitioner on 10.07.2016. She claimed that she was employed as a clerical staff at State Bank of India, Bengaluru while the petitioner was employed in WIPRO and he was deputed overseas. She alleged that after 15 days from the date of marriage, she and the petitioner were invited by their relatives. She alleged that the petitioner reprimanded her that she should be ready on time, failing which, he would go alone to his relatives house. She claimed that due to this, she was mentally upset. She alleged that the petitioner had promised to take her abroad but did not do so claiming that the Visa was not ready. She alleged that whenever she spoke to petitioner over phone, he was not responding well. Later, she joined the petitioner on 20.12.2016 and stayed with him for 2½ months. She claimed that during her stay, the petitioner used to pick up quarrel over trivial things and he used to scold her. She alleged that he never treated her with love, care and compassion. Even when she

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶30

was not well, he did not provide the required medical facilities. She claimed that the marriage was not consummated. She alleged that she used to telephone her father and inform him everything that happened at home. As a result of the alleged ill-treatment, she lost her mental peace. She allegedly apprehended that lodging a complaint in United States of America, would expose the petitioner to the risk of being arrested and therefore, she did not lodge any complaint. She alleged that when she left to India, the petitioner had warned her not to lodge any complaint in India as his parents may commit suicide. She claimed that after she came to India, she stayed at her mother’s place for 1½ months during which time, the petitioner did not call her. She alleged that the petitioner telephoned her mother and informed her that he would be sending a set of papers with his father and informed her to get the signature of the respondent No.1. She claimed that without raising any objection, she signed those papers. She alleged that her in-laws were demanding the travel cost of respondent No.1 from India to the place where the petitioner was residing. She alleged that a notice of the petition for dissolution of her marriage was served on her at her residence as well as at her

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶32

office. As per the notice received by her, she attended the Court on 10.07.2019. However, the petitioner was absent. On 13.12.2019 both the petitioner and the respondent were advised to discuss about reconciliation. She claimed that when she went outside the Court, the petitioner claimed that he cannot change and that she has to accept the way he is. He also claimed that she has to leave her job and join him or else, he did not need her. She alleged that on 16.12.2019, 21.12.2019, 30.12.2019 and 20.01.2020, the petitioner did not turn up before the Court. Therefore, she lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had caused mental cruelty. Based on this, respondent No.2 registered Crime No.3/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and took up investigation. The respondent No.2 recorded the statements of the parents of respondent No.2 and the witnesses to various mahazars drawn and filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The Trial Court considered the charge sheet and materials placed along with it and in terms of a specific order took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and registered CC

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶35

No.217/2020 and issued process to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

The learned counsel for petitioner contends that a reading of the complaint lodged by respondent No.1 before the respondent No.2 did not show any ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He contends that the allegations contained in the complaint are mere wear and tear of family life and cannot constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He also contends that even the statements of CWs.2 and 3 do not indicate the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He contends that though the respondent No.1 returned from United States in the year 2016, she did choose to file a complaint from the year 2016 till the year 2020. However, soon after the petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in December 2018, the respondent No.1 has lodged the instant complaint. He therefore submits that the charge sheet filed and the order taking cognizance by the Trial Court is without any application of mind, as the allegations made did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and therefore, prays the impugned prosecution be quashed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is said to be committed when the respondent No.1 is harassed both physically or mentally and in the present case, he contends that respondent No.1 is exposed to continuous harassment by the petitioner and therefore, an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is made out and it is for the petitioner to establish his innocence before the Trial Court as charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken. He contends that mental cruelty can differ from person to person depending upon their background, social status etc. and in the present case, both of them are well educated and employed and therefore, respondent No.1 was entitled to expect that she would be treated well by the petitioner and his parents. He contends that since mental cruelty being an unsavoury state of mind, induced by diabolical acts of the petitioner which is evident from the statement made in the complaint and further statements of respondent No.1, the falsity of these statements has to be established before the Trial Court and the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to set at naught the prosecution.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶42

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondent No.1.

¶43

The test to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioner, is whether on a reading of the entire charge sheet and accompanying material, any offence is made out or not?

¶44

In the case hand, a perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.1 before the respondent No.2 discloses that the respondent No.1 was given in marriage to the petitioner during July, 2016 and that she traveled to the United States, to join the petitioner somewhere, during the early 2017. The only allegation alleged is that the petitioner expected the respondent No.1 to be ready on time to go to their relatives house, else he would go alone. Except this, bald allegations are made that in United States the petitioner picked up quarrel over trivial things without giving any background. Likewise, by claiming that she was not treated well and with love is such an omnibus statement that the Court cannot guess, the reason for the loss of love between them. Except making bald allegations

¶45

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶46

that she was not treated well by the petitioner, she did not give specific instances from which the Court could decipher, whether the respondent No.1 was meted out with mental cruelty of such

¶47

a nature that it could drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury, danger to life, limb or health. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a few instances cited by the respondent No.1 in her complaint is nothing but normal wear and tear of family life, which happens in any normal family. The instances mentioned cannot constitute mental cruelty as defined under Section 498A of IPC. A few utterances

¶48

here and there by the petitioner and his family members, cannot itself cause cruelty of such a nature so as to constitute an offence under Section 498A of IPC.

¶49

Mere claim of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner used to get infuriated over the respondent No.1 not readying herself in time to attend to function is not sufficient to cause mental or physical cruelty to the respondent No.1.

¶50

This apart, the timing of the complaint is important,

¶51

as it is seen that even after the respondent No.1 returned from the United States somewhere during the January/February,

¶52

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶53

2017, till the year 2020, she did not take any steps to bring to book the petitioner. Contrarily, she waited for the petitioner to file a petition for dissolution of marriage, attended the hearings in the said petition and long after, when the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court, thought it fit to file a complaint before the respondent No.2. There is no explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint from the year 2017 till the year 2020.

¶54

No doubt, mere delay would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings. However unexplained delay of nearly three years is definitely a ground for quashing the petition as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hasmukhlal D.

¶55

Vora and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 2022 SCC Online SC 1732.

¶56

In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. The prosecution launched against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

¶57

Consequently, petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.217/2020 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur,

¶58

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:42738 CRL.P No. 8057 of 2020

¶59

Dakshina Kannada district for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC is quashed.

¶60

This Court had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to establish his bonafides to amicably settle the matrimonial dispute with the respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner has placed on record a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- favouring respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.1 is not interested to settle the dispute by accepting a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. In that view of the matter, the registry is directed to return the Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner, without insisting the presence of the petitioner.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

UN - para 1 to 5 HJ - para 6 to 14 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Rajesh G v. Smt Impana Naik K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh G v. Smt Impana Naik K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Shayak Sen Vs State of Karnataka

Smt H R Rajamma Vs Sri H R Rajeev

Shri. Jameel Basha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S Gowri Shankar Vs the State

Smt. Sakamma Vs Smt. Gowramma

Mr. Gunapala Vs the State of Karnataka