VINOD ELIGETI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned petition is filed by husband and his parents who are arraigned as petitioner Nos.1 to 3 respectively seeking quashing of proceedings pending in C.C.No.17505/2016 for the offences punishable under Sec. 498(A) read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent No.2-complainant who is the wife of petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint on 4/3/2016 alleging that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 29/11/2012 and immediately after marriage, she joined the marital home of petitioner No.1 and the in-laws of respondent No.2 were harassing her thereby demanding dowry on the count that their son has obtained Masters in the United States of America and often indulged in using abusive language. It is further alleged in the complaint that during brief stay at her in-laws house, she was humiliated everyday by taunts and abuses and the petitioner No.1 was often using abusive language. She often carried a fear that petitioner No.1- husband may assault and hurt her physically and when she met her parents in the month of January, 2013, her parents had deliberations with petitioner No.1-husband about his abusive behaviour towards respondent No.2-complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that petitioner No.1's aggressive behaviour even continued at US and his family members, brother and sister-in-law were also constantly harassing respondent No.2-complainant and she had to rush to Hospital on account of one of the incident where she had a threat to her life. Based on these set of serious allegations, a complaint came to be lodged on 4/3/2016.

(3.) The petitioners herein are seeking quashing of the proceedings. To substantiate that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2-complainant is frivolous and the same is intended to harass the petitioners, petitioners have placed on record the divorce proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 at San Mateo County Court, California. Referring to these significant details, petitioner No.1 has sought for quashing of the proceedings by contending that the marriage is dissolved and a decree for dissolution of marriage is passed on 20/7/2016 by San Mateo County Court, California and pursuant to dissolution of marriage, petitioner No.1 who had agreed to pay divorce equalization payment has complied the order of the County Court and has issued a cheque to respondent No.2-complainant for a sum of 2,964 US dollars by way of a cheque which is encashed by the respondent No.2 on 8/8/2016 which is evident from statement of account of respondent No.2 with Bank of America.