Courts must exercise caution against the misuse of Section 498A IPC by ensuring allegations are supported by prima facie evidence, particularly in matrimonial disputes.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 6 in CC No.8949/2021 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC ') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the DP Act') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Heard Sri.Prabhugoud B Tumbigi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rangaswamy R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 remained absent despite service of notice. Hence, his argument is taken as nil. 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 Whitefield police station on 15.02.2021 against accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging that accused No.1 being husband, accused No.5 being the father, accused No.6 being sister, accused Nos.2 to 4 being relatives of accused No.1 demanded and accepted dowry, and the marriage was performed on 27.08.2017. After the marriage, when she had been to matrimonial house, the accused ill-treated her and started demanding additional dowry. She was ousted from the matrimonial house and she started residing in her own flat, since 2019. Even then the accused used to treat her with cruelty by demanding additional dowry and therefore, prayed for registration of the criminal case.

5. The FIR in Cr.No.43/2011 of Whitefield police station came to be registered. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. It is stated in column No.7 of the charge sheet that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.6 lakhs in cash was given to accused No.1, along with gold chain, clothes etc and 1/2 kg of gold was given to respondent No.2. The marriage was performed by spending lavishly.

6. It is contended by respondent No.2 that, after marriage, the accused started demanding additional dowry and treated her with cruelty. Since she was ousted from matrimonial house, she had gone to her own flat in February, 2019. But still the accused were insisting her to pay the additional dowry. It is also stated that accused No.1 was insisting for divorce and hence, the complaint came to be filed.

7. Interestingly, there is no date and time of commission, of any of the offences. Bald and general allegations are made. It is stated that respondent No.2 is a Software Engineer working in Accenture, Bengaluru. Accused No.1 is also equally qualified. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to Annexure R1 produced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 along with the statement of objections. The complaint dated 19.08.2019 was filed by respondent No.2 with Karnataka State Commission for Women. But, there was no allegation of demand and acceptance of dowry or demand for additional dowry. Casually some incidents that had occurred in the house were explained as a story without there being any particulars. There is no reason as to why there is no allegation of demand and acceptance of dowry or demand for additional dowry in the complaint dated 19.08.2019 but it finds a place in the present complaint that was filed on 15.02.2021.

8. According t