Point of Law:Dowry harassment – Quash of FIR - allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. The act of respondent no.2 in setting the criminal law into motion is only with a view to give physical and mental harassment to the accused.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners who are arrayed as accused nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.25556/2017 arising out of Crime No.10/2017 registered by V.V.Puram Police for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.25556/2017 pending before the XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. Brief facts of the case:

Respondent no.2 – Smt. Unnati Vinay Sancheti is none other than the daughter-in-law of petitioners 1 & 2 and sister-in-law of petitioner no.3, and petitioners 4 & 5 are the brothers of petitioner no.1. Respondent no.2 along with her husband had filed a suit in O.S.No.7832/2016 against her in-laws and so also other relatives seeking injunction in respect of the house property owned and occupied by petitioners 2 & 3. In the said suit, the interim applications filed in IA Nos.1 & 2 by respondent no.2 was rejected on 07.09.2017 holding that respondent no.2 was not in possession of the apartment building and it was in fact petitioner no.3 along with their family which was residing in the said premises. Thereafter, respondent no.2 has lodged a complaint before the respondent Police against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, based on which Crime No.10/2017 came to be registered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized with the son of petitioners 1 & 2 and that during March 2012 at the time of marriage talks, accused nos.1 to 5 demanded gold ornaments weighing 1/2 kg, silver articles weighing 20 kg be given to the husband of respondent no.2 and marriage was solemnized at Palace Grounds. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter, the father of respondent no.2 has given 300 gms gold ornaments and silver ornaments weighing 10 kgs to the husband of respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was also given towards marriage expenses. It is the further case of the prosecution that the husband of respondent no.2 purchased an apartment in the name of accused no.3 and that accused nos.1 to 5 demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards dowry and as respondent no.2 was not able to give the said amount, respondent no.2 and her husband were thrown out of the house by accused nos.1 to 5. With these allegations, the respondent-Police filed charge sheet against the petitioners.

4. Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged incident of demanding dowry and that respondent no.2 and her husband being thrown from the residential house is said to have taken place on 11.09.2016, and whereas the complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 on 04.11.2016, nearly two months after the alleged date of incident. That apart, the First Information Report is filed by the respondent Police on 17.01.2017 i.e., nearly two months after the filing of the complaint. He submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted to be true, the same do not disclose commission of offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that respondent no.2 having failed to get an injunction order in the aforesaid civil case, thereafter, she has filed the present frivolous complaint against her own in-laws and relatives, and that the learned Magistrate without appreciating the same, has taken cognizance against the petitioners herein, which is an abuse of the process of law. He further submits that petitioners are the in-laws of respondent no.2 and petitioner no.3 is the brother-in-law of respondent no.2 and as the in-laws of respondent no.2 stood by petitioner no.3 in the family dispute, a false case has been foisted by respondent no.2 against her own in-laws in order to humiliate and harass them. On these premises, seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against them being an accused.

5. Learned HCGP for the State who has countered the a