Obaleshwar and Others vs Minal and Others

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—1. These two criminal petitions are filed by accused in Crime No. 169/2013 and 190/2013, respectively, both registered with Marihal Police of Belagavi district.

The proceedings in Crime No. 190/2013 was initiated for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC pursuant to the complaint filed against husband Obaleshwar and mother-in-law Mallavva. On investigation, the police have filed charge sheet in the said proceedings and thereafter the same is registered as C.C. No. 236/2014. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said proceedings namely Obaleshwar and Smt. Mallavva, who are son and mother have come up in Criminal Petition No. 101903/2014 seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint.

Whereas, the proceedings in Crime No. 169/2013 is initiated by the very same police, pursuant to the complaint filed by Obaleshwar against his wife for the offence punishable under Section 506, 325 of IPC. The police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet in the said proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 307, 506 of IPC and pursuant to that the learned Magistrate has committed the same to the Sessions Court and presently pending consideration in S.C. No. 208/2014, which is sought to be quashed, by the accused in the said proceedings viz., Smt. Minal by filing Criminal Petition No. 100400/2015. Since both petitions are clubbed together, they are taken up for common consideration.

Admittedly the petitioner Obaleshwar and Smt. Mallavva in Crl. P. No. 101903/2014 are the husband and mother-in-law of Smt. Minal @ Aruna, who is 1st respondent therein and petitioner in Crl. P. No. 100400/2015, filed by her challenging the proceedings initiated against her, by her husband. The dispute between Obaleshwar and his wife Minal dates back prior to 2013, during which period the relationship between them went sour resulting in they deliberated with the idea of filing a petition for divorce.

In this background it is stated that on 5.7.2013, when the husband Obaleshwar called upon his wife to join him to go to Court for filing divorce petition, it is stated that Smt. Minal held the testicles of her husband and squeezed the same with an intention to cause grievous hurt to him and also to endanger his life. It is stated that, with great difficulty he was able to get released from the clutches of his wife and thereafter went for treatment to KLE Society''s Prabhakar Kore Hospital and Medical and Research Centre, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi, at 11.00 a.m. and got himself admitted in the said hospital.

Thereafter, i.e., after his discharge from the hospital, he lodged a complaint with police on 11.7.2013 alleging that his wife caused grievous injuries to him with an intention to put an end to his life. The said complaint was registered in Crime No. 169/2013. Though it was stated in the said complaint that there was an attempt to end his life by squeezing his testicles, the police registered the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 506, 325 of IPC and subsequently on conducting investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 307, 506 of IPC.

Subsequently on 21.8.2013, a complaint is filed by the wife with very same police alleging dowry harassment to her by her husband and his mother. Several allegations are made in the said complaint with reference to husband doubting her chastity and his family members not taking good care of her so on and so forth. The police have conducted investigation into the said complaint and filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. Based on that C.C. No. 236/2014 is registered. Both parties have come up in different petitions seeking quashing of the same.

After hearing the learned counsel for the husband and his mother and as well as wife and on going through both the complaints and also other materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint which is filed by the husband which is first in the order of time, dated 11.7.2013, would refer to the offence committed by his wife in holding his testicles and attempting to squeeze the same in such a way that there is threat to his life. The same is substantiated by two other documents i.e., certificate issued by Prabhakar Kore Hospital and another one is complaint itself wherein there is reference to his admission to hospital. Immediately after the incident on 5.7.2013 at 11.00 a.m. he being admitted as inpatient in the said hospital up to 9.7.2013, it is seen that during the period when he was inpatient in the said hospital, he was treated for the injuries to his scrotum and thereafter he has filed the complaint on 11.7.2013 at about 11.00 a.m.

The sequence of events would prima facie give rise for presumption of the offence being committed by complainant''s wife which is required to be established by him in the proceedings which is initiated in S.C. No. 208/2014 pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Court, belagavi. Therefore the criminal petition which is filed by the wife in Crl. P. No. 100400/2014 cannot be considered at this juncture for the reason that the same would be in the light of the allegations levelled against her with the help of material available on record. Accordingly the said petition is dismissed.

Now coming to the petition which is filed by the husband and his mother seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 236/2014 is concerned, it is seen that there is allegation of dowry in the complaint dated 21.8.2013. There is reference to complaint being filed on 5.7.2013 itself. However the same is not forth coming neither from records of police nor a copy of the same is produced by the complainant Smt. Minal who is the wife of Obaleshwar. Though there is reference to demand for dowry, in the entire complaint there is no reference as to the date when the dowry was demanded by the accused i.e., the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. Though there is reference to harassment being meted out to her, no particulars are furnished in the complaint. The complaint appears to be very bald. When this complaint is looked into from the angle of earlier complaint filed by her husband for the offence punishable under Section 506, 325 of IPC, it is seen that this complaint is filed in the nature of retaliation. The said complaint is bereft of particulars, i.e., the particulars regarding the date when the dowry was demanded, the amount of money or any other articles which is said to be demanded as dowry are not mentioned in the complaint dated 21.8.2013.

On going through the entire complaint, no grounds are seen to register the same for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. This Court feel that the manner in which the complaint is filed by the wife appears to be with intention to take revenge against the husband. So far as police are concerned, though they have not found any material to substantiate the same, they have not only registered the same but have filed a charge sheet. Therefore if the charge sheet is allowed to continue, it would cause unnecessary harassment to the husband and as well as to the mother-in-law of the complainant. It appears, there is deliberate intention in filing the said complaint to harass them. Therefore the Criminal Petition No. 101903/2014 filed by the husband seeking quashing of the complaint filed by the wife and criminal case registered pursuant to the same against him and his mother is required to be allowed. Accordingly by allowing the said petition the aforesaid complaint and proceedings in C.C. No. 236/2014 is hereby quashed.