'Marriage Dissolved, Chargesheet U/S 498A Without Any Substance': Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Dr. Shahul Hameed Valavoor and others and quashed the prosecution registered under sections 498 A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

As per the prosecution, the couple married in 2009 in accordance with Islamic customs and tradition and thereafter they resided at the marital home along with other accused. It was alleged that accused No.1 (husband) and respondent No.2 (complainant) along with the child went to the USA in the month of December-2011. They returned to India in the year 2016 and during their stay in India, respondent No.2 was harassed by accused to bring dowry for the purpose of higher education of accused No.1 in USA. In February 2017, respondent No.2 went back to the USA along with the child but later on was forcibly sent back to India, it was alleged.

In May 2018, she went to the house of accused Nos.2 to 4 but was denied entry, it was further alleged.

Findings:

The bench noted that it is also undisputed that the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was dissolved by the IOWA Court at USA and permanent alimony has been deposited in the bank account of respondent No.2 which clearly implies that marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was dissolved. The contention that the order was obtained fraudulently without issuing notice to respondent No.2 cannot be considered in this petition.

"Hence, the marriage of respondent No.2 having been dissolved with accused No.1, the charge sheet filed against accused is without any substance. In the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners-accused, the charge sheet filed is not sustainable."

Further it said, "Even otherwise, except omnibus and general allegations there are no specific allegations as to how and in what manner each of the accused subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty or assaulted her. Hence, the charge sheet filed on the basis of omnibus and general allegations is also without any substance."

The bench then opined that the dispute between the parties arises out of marital discord, however, given a criminal texture so as to pressurise the petitioners/accused to arrive at settlement.

Further the bench said respondent No.2 returned to India in February 2018 but the FIR was lodged only in May 2018, without offering any explanation. "Hence, it is implied that the FIR was lodged against accused Nos.2 to 4 with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent."

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Case Title: DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7036 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408

Date of Order: 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Appearance: VISHWAJITH RAI.M, ADVOCATE A/W ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE for petitioners; SHANKAR.H.S, HCGP FOR R1; B.LETHIF, ADVOCATE FOR R2

Click Here To Read/Download Order