Court held that vague allegations of dowry demands and cruelty must be scrutinized closely to prevent legal misuse in matrimonial disputes.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 8 in Cr.No.128/2020 of Sathanur Police Station now pending in CC No.562/2021 on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 504, 506 R/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC ') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Heard learned counsels Sri. Angad Kamath, along with Sri. Vishakh Hegde for the petitioners, and Smt. Sowmya.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served, remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

4. Respondent No.2 filed the first information with Sathanur police making allegations regarding demand and acceptance of huge sum of money, gold and silver articles by way of dowry, demand for additional dowry, harassment and cruelty meted to her.

5. The facts of the case disclose that respondent No.2 married accused No.1/petitioner No.1 on 01.03.2020 and the present complaint came to be filed on 16.09.2020. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. As per the first information, respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 18.06.2020 and it is alleged that the offence referred to by her were committed from 15.03.2020 till 18.06.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court to the dates and events which gave raise to filing of the first information by respondent No.2. It is pertinent to note that on 14.07.2020, petitioner No.1 issued the legal notice to respondent No.2 calling upon her to give consent for divorce. He lodged complaint on 18.07.2020 with East Police Station, Mandya, against respondent No.2 and others, who said to have threatened him and the same came to be registered in Cr.No.265/2020. On 04.08.2020, respondent No.2 issued reply to the legal notice issued by petitioner No.1 seeking divorce. Strangely, there is no allegations as found in the first information in the said reply notice dated 04.08.2020. It is stated that respondent No.2 was called to the police station and her statement was recorded. Strangely even in the said statement there is no such allegations made.

7. It is brought to the notice of the Court that petitioner No.1 filed the second complaint on 16.08.2020 before the East Police Station, Mandya, requesting for protection and the same was registered in Cr.No.309/2020. Since it was a matrimonial dispute, it was referred to the Vikasana Institute for Rural and Urban Development, Mandya for counseling. The materials on record disclose that respondent No.2 had even appeared before the Counselor and in the meantime, on 16.09.2020, present complaint came to be filed making all serious allegations with Sathanur police, which is said to be the mother's place of respondent.

8. The materials on record also disclose that on 25.09.2020, petitioner No.1 was taken to custody and he was released on bail only on 30.09.2020.

9. The allegations made in the first information as well as in the charge sheet disclose that there was demand for Rs.10 lalkhs, 1 kg of gold, 2 kgs of silver as dowry. Out of which, respondent No.2 said to have paid R