Criminal proceedings initiated amidst matrimonial disputes can be quashed if deemed abusive and misused, reflecting on the misuse of legal processes in civil matters.

ORDER :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this petition under  Section 4 82 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1950/2022 on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 498-A, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

2. In support of the petition, petitioners have contended that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 Nancy Bhatia was performed on 26.06.2005 at Mumbai. It was registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Bhandra, Mumbai on 12.09.2005. The marriage was celebrated in a simple manner and around 500 invitees attended the marriage. Petitioner and his family spent Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, respondent No.2 joined the matrimonial home at Mumbai.

2.1 Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. There was no demand for dowry in any form. In October 2020, petitioner No.1 came across a file in which it is stated that respondent No.2 has undergone abortion in 2018. When confronted, she revealed that she had an affair and it ended and during the said period, she had undergone abortion. She apologized to petitioner No.1.

2.2 Respondent No.2 is not keeping any physical relationship with petitioner No.1 since 2016. During December 2020, respondent No.2 conveyed that she could not continue with their marriage and she has no feelings towards petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 was shattered and thought of committing suicide. Respondent No.2 told him not to die in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru and instead he can die in his parents house. Petitioner No.1 did not want to end the marriage, as their child is aged only 7 years. However, after August 2020, respondent No.2 assaulted petitioner No.1 multiple times.

2.3 The apartment booked by petitioner No.1 was ready for registration during 2020. It is petitioner No.1 who has paid the entire amount of Rs.35 lakhs. He is paying the EMI. Despite the same, he made respondent No.2 as a joint owner by including her name in the sale deed, with a fond hope that respondent No.2 would change her attitude and lead a happy married life. However, she did not change her attitude. They continued to live like strangers.

2.4 On 15.09.2022, respondent No.2 expressed her desire to move out of the house permanently. However, the child was not ready to go with her. On 30.09.2022, respondent No.2 went out with her friends and returned only at 2.30 a.m. and said that she is having an affair with a person living in the same apartment.

2.5 On 05.10.2022, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 came to Bengaluru and advised respondent No.2 to desist from having affair. But, respondent No.2 refused to heed to the advise. She offered to get her name removed from the sale deed and left with the child and her mother and moved to her apartment. Being depressed, petitioner No.1 along with other petitioners went to Mumbai. On

15.10.2022, respondent No.2 called petitioner No.1 and informed him that she is moving back to the house of petitioner No.1 as it also belongs to her and now she is staying in the house of petitioner No.1.

2.6 In the meanwhile, on 08.11.2022, respondent No.2 has filed for divorce in M.C.No.6782/2022 making false allegations. Petitioner No.1 also filed M.C.No.7369/2022. In this background, on 22.11.2022, respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint. In this regard NCR.No.1108/2022 was issued by the concerned police. Petitioner No.1 has also given his statement on 17.12.2022. After giving statement, petitioner No.1 thought that the said case would be closed. However, to his shock and dismay, respondent No.2 has filed complaint dated 20.12.2022, making further allegations of demand for dowr