IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty and dowry offences – Criminal law must not be permitted to degenerate into instrument of oppression or personal vengeance.

ORDER (CAV)

The petitioners, 4 in number, stand before this Court seeking shelter from the sweeping arm of criminal law, which according to them, has been set in motion, not by the weight of culpability, but by the frailty of matrimonial discord. They call into question the registration of crime in Crime No.90 of 2024, where they have been arrayed as accused, for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its merits, it becomes necessary to delineate the relationships that bind and now divide, the protagonists in the lis. The 2nd respondent is the complainant/wife of the 1st petitioner/accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the father-in-law of the complainant; accused No.3 is the mother-in-law and accused No.4 is the brother-in-law. The 2nd respondent/complainant and accused No.1 get married on 25-08-2017. The couple then relocated to the United States of America, where accused No.1 was gainfully employed. For nearly 6 years, the matrimonial life unfolded overseas, culminating in the birth of a child. It is only in January 2023 that the complainant returns to India and thereafter, seeks to set the criminal law into motion, by registering a complaint for offences punishable Sections 498A, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC, not only against her husband but also against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in law. On the complaint, the Police register a crime in Crime No.90 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences, including offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. On registration of crime, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Syed Khaleel Pasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that accused No.1 and the complainant lived in United States of America. They had some misunderstanding or minor problems that would happen in a marriage. The complainant comes back to India in January 2023 and then alleges that the husband and other members of the family have harassed her over telephone. He would submit that if this is permitted to continue, it would become a classic illustration of abuse of Section 498A of the IPC. The learned counsel would further submit that on registration of crime a look out circular was also issued against the 1st petitioner which had stopped him from moving beyond the shores of the nation. All this, the learned counsel would submit, is an abuse of the process of law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Naveed Ahmed appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would refute the submissions in contending that the harassment by the husband or the in-laws is clearly brought out in the complaint. Investigation, at least, must be permitted to be continued. The moment crime is registered, the petitioners have approached this Court and this Court has granted an interim order of stay. Against the in-laws, he would submit that it may not meet the ingredients of offences. But, against the husband it clearly meets and, therefore, the proceedings must be permitted to continue against the husband in the least. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would also seek dismissal of the petition on the sole score that investigation in the least is a must.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The facts, in their broad outline, are not in dispute. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the c