SRIDHAR VALLUR AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.53030/2013 on the file of XI Addl. CMM Court, Bangalore.

(2.) The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 in the aforesaid criminal case. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.4 is the sister and petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.4. The second respondent Smt. Kalpana C.G.-wife of the first petitioner lodged a complaint before the Bharathinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, which came to be registered in Cr.No.27/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34, IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations made out in the complaint are that the respondent No.2 is working as Lecturer in New Horizon College. Her marriage was performed on 4.7.2004 with petitioner No.1, who is the resident of Chittoor. At the time of marriage, 60 soverign gold and cash amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was given to petitioner No.1 as dowry. The mother of petitioner No.1 demanded another 2 - 1/2 lakh and the said demand was also fulfilled. Petitioner No.1 was working as Engineer at Hyderabad. He left the job and went to U.S.A. Out of the marriage, they have got a son Milan aged about 6 years. She was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioners. They used to force her to go to walk early in the morning stating that she is bulky, they also used to abuse her in filthy language and constantly harassing her to bring more gold and cash amount from her parents stating that they have also given sufficient dowry at the time of their daughter' s marriage-petitioner No.4. As such, she lodged a complaint on account of unbearable harassment meted out to her. A crime came to be registered. Upon investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.53030/2013 for the aforesaid offences. To quash the proceedings, this petition is filed.

(3.) The petitioners have produced Annexure-E whereunder the parents of petitioner No.1 returned as many as 14 gold ornaments to respondent No.2 by a memo dated 17.11.2007 in the presence of panchas which has been acknowledged by respondent No.2-the complainant. Ex-E1 is the memo, whereunder all the original certificates which were in possession of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 mother-in-law and father-in-law were returned to respondent No.2. They are SSLC pass certificate, PUC marks card, B.Sc. marks statement of three years, B.Sc. convocation certificate, MCA 6 semester marks statements and MCA Convocation. The second respondent received those documents and ornaments on 17.11.2007. The petitioners have also produced a copy of the divorce decree granted by the American Court where the husband is working whereby the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is dissolved by a decree of divorce and petitioner No.1 has been directed to pay maintenance to the child at 500 dollars per month. The marriage came to be dissolved on 2.9.2007. This complaint came to be lodged in the year 2013 five years after the dissolution of the marriage. In the year 2007 itself, she obtained her gold ornaments and certificates from the petitioner Nos.2 and 3- the father-in-law and mother-in-law. The petitioners have also produced certain documents to show that the respondent No.2 had also filed complaints in Courts at Chittoor at some point of time. When respondent No.2 is residing separately from her husband and in-laws since 2007, the filing of the complaint in the year 2013 making allegation of dowry harassment not only against her husband but also against her in-laws is impossible to accept. Respondent No.2 is working as a lecturer in Bengaluru and the petitioners are at Chittoor in Andhra Pradesh. It appears just to take revenge because of the divorce taken by the petitioner No.1, the complaint came to be filed and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have been roped into without any basis. Though the complaint speaks about the harassment and ill-treatment on account of dowry, it appears that those allegations have been made just to harass the petitioners with mala fide intention. If the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are in no way concerned with the affairs of respondent No.2, that too, after the dissolution of the marriage in the year 2007, should not be allowed to continue. If the proceedings are allowed to continue as against petitioner Nos.2 to 5, it would amount to abuse of process of Court.