IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of cruelty and dowry demands must be substantiated by evidence; otherwise, proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.24483 of 2018 arising out of crime in Crime No.112 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The 2nd respondent is the complainant, wife of the petitioner. The two get married on 21-04-2014. Soon thereafter, the allegation or averment in the petition is that, the complainant started to quarrel with the petitioner/husband and therefore, the relationship began to flounder. After floundering of the relationship, the wife institutes several proceedings – one invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the other is petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.2536 of 2015 and the third one is the impugned proceedings for it being registered on 30-05-2018 for the afore-quoted offences. Thereafter, the husband institutes proceedings before the concerned Court seeking dissolution of marriage.

3. The Police, in the subject crime, conduct investigation and file a charge sheet in C.C.No.24483 of 2018 for the aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences and the matter is pending before the concerned Court. Long thereafter the Family Court at Bangalore allows divorce petition of the petitioner and rejects the petition for conjugal rights of the wife by making certain observations. It is then the subject petition is preferred contending that all the allegations made by the wife are false by seeking quashment of entire proceedings.

4. Heard Smt. Amrita Manchand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri V. Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the allegation against the petitioner is on the face of it false. There is no demand of dowry made at any point in time by the petitioner. It is the torture that is meted out by the wife against the husband that led the concerned Court granting divorce and rejecting restitution of conjugal rights petition. Those orders have become final. It is to be noticed that at the stage of registration of the crime all the members of the family had been drawn into the web of crime. There were 9 accused. The police conduct investigation and drop all others except the husband from the array of accused. Even the husband has not indulged in any act that would become any of the ingredients of offences. She would seek quashment of entire proceedings, terming them to be an abuse of the process of law.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the police after investigation have filed the charge sheet. Once having filed the charge sheet, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial. The Police while filing the charge sheet have dropped all other accused except the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is abuse of the process of law. All allegations against the husband are clearly met in the case at hand. He would submit that merely because the concerned Court has rejected the petition for conjugal rights and granted divorce, the same would mean that the subject crime registered long ago would vanish. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the complainant/2nd respondent in contending that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean and would submit that the proceedings before the concerned Court are at advanced stage and, therefore, this Court should not interfere.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have