Point of law : If the allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter

ORDER :

The petitioners/accused 2 and 3 – mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent/complainant have called in question the proceedings in Crime No.508 of 2018 which has resulted in registration of criminal case in Crime Case No.54210 of 2018 before the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayohall, Bangalore for offence punishable under Sections498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

On 24-12-2004 the complainant marries the son of the 1st petitioner at Thane and the complainant and her husband/accused No.1 thereafter shift to Texas, USA. The complainant and her husband lived in USA between 2004 and 2011. In the month of November, 2011 the complainant and her husband opt to move back to Thane, India since the young two kids that they had were to be taken care of. After their return, the husband of the 1st petitioner died on 5-09-2014. In the month of November, 2014 both the complainant and her husband shift to Bangalore and began to reside at Bangalore.

3. It further transpires that the husband goes back to Thane from Bangalore to take care of his mother, 1st the petitioner, who was ailing and requested the complainant also to shift to an apartment at Thane where the entire family could live together. This happened in the month of April 2018. This appears to have led to certain controversy because of which the complainant filed a domestic violence petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.141 of 2018, which is pending consideration before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore seeking maintenance against the husband of the complainant. It is after filing of the said petition for maintenance the complainant also lodges a complaint against the petitioners and her husband and the police registered the complaint as a Non-Cognizable Report (‘NCR’) No.1060 of 2018.

4. After the said complaint turning down by the police to register a FIR, the 2nd respondent registers another complaint before the 1st respondent alleging offences under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioners and her husband. The complaint is registered as FIR in Crime No.508 of 2018 and is now a Crime Case No.54210 of 2018. It is at that juncture the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court seeking annulment of entire proceedings initiated against them.

5. Heard Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Rohan Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complainant and her husband never lived with the petitioners. They were for 7 years living in USA and in the month of November, 2011 the complainant and her husband moved back to Thane and for certain period were staying with the family of the husband together and later both of them moved to Bangalore. There was no occasion for the petitioners who are mother-in-law and sister-in-law to have indulged in any act which would attract the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioners have in fact taken care of the complainant whenever she did reside with them for whatever period and only because there were problems between the husband and the complainant, the petitioners are also dragged into the picture.

7. He would further submit that initially the complaint lodged resulted in an NCR and it is only later a second complaint is registered for further offences. He submits that it is a fit case in which this Court has to interfere and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners also have indulged in several acts of harassment against the complainant as could be seen from the complaint itself, as the complain