ORDER :

The petitioner calls in question registration of a crime in Crime No.139 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 313 and 498A of the IPC.

2. Though the matter is listed in orders, with the consent of parties, it is taken up for final hearing.

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

The petitioner is the husband of one S.V. Raksha, who dies committing suicide. The complainant/2nd respondent is her father and father-in-law of the petitioner. Marriage between the petitioner and S.V. Raksha takes place on 11-12-2017 at Chikmagalur. The same came to be registered on a later date. It is the case of the petitioner that relationship between the wife and the husband did not go well immediately after marriage and they had serious compatibility issues between them. When incompatibility became inevitable, the daughter of the complainant appears to have left the matrimonial home and began to reside with her parents at Bangalore. All efforts of reconciliation which were on for over two years are said to have failed. On the score of irreconcilable incompatibility both the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant filed an application for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, by mutual consent, in M.C.No.2415 of 2022. An application is also filed for waiver of 6 months period for separation by mutual consent. During the pendency of the said petition before the Family Court, it transpires, on the morning of 13-06-2022 when the petitioner was at Mysore, he received a call from his mother-in-law that their daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself in the bed room of the parental house and a report of suicide was made before the jurisdictional police. On the said incident, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant which becomes a crime in Crime No.139 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 313 and 498A of the IPC. It is this registration of crime that drives the petitioner/husband to this Court.

4. Heard Sri Arun Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.S. Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.R.C. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel Sri Arun Govindaraj, appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence, that a strained relationship between the husband and the wife for over two years has led the daughter of the complainant to leave the matrimonial house and reside in her parents’ house. The family of the complainant also has a problem amongst themselves, as there were several communications between the deceased and brother of the deceased with regard to the behavior of the deceased towards the family of the petitioner or petitioner himself. He would submit that ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC are not satisfied even to the remotest sense, as the ingredients should be of such harassment for demand of dowry that would lead to the death of the deceased/wife. That not being in place, he would seek quashment of entire proceedings and would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SURESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – (2009) 17 SCC 243.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant Sri M.R.C.Manohar, would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the death has occurred only 15 days ago and the case is registered on 13.06.2022. The investigation is still on. At this stage, what is to be looked into is only whether prima facie the complaint satisfies the ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC. He would further submit that there are other offences alleged under Sections 313 and 498A of the IPC which are all cognizable. He would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS – (2018) 3 SCC 104, KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PR