AJAY V. KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.33672/2022 pending on the file of 37th ACMM Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.238/2022 registered by Basavanagudi Women police station and charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Ss. 498A, 417 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC ).

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned SPP-I, learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2 filed on 11/8/2022 alleging that the first petitioner had married respondent No.2 on 26/5/2019 at Rangaswamy Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru after the marriage she resided at matrimonial home. The petitioner No.4 who is sister and petitioner No.5 is brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.4 came to maternal home for second delivery and stayed at the house of petitioner No.1 for 4 months. The relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was normal till February 2021. However, inspite of completion of one and half years of marriage, respondent No.2 had not become pregnant, hence the family approached the doctor for medical checkup and the doctors informed that she do not have any problem in getting pregnancy, but they informed the count in the sperm of the petitioner no.1 was less, hence he has been provided some tablets. Later, they also advised petitioner No.1 to approach the fertility hospital, accordingly, treatment was given. Further, respondent No.2 also undergone a surgery for Polyps on 21/6/2021 and after the same, she was perfectly ready for pregnancy. The petitioner No.1 was shown to Dr. Tarun where it was diagnosed that petitioner No.1 was suffering from Varicocele, Grade 3-4 disease and he his suffering from the same for last 12 years. But he has not intimated the same to the complainant and he has suppressed the same and married complainant. It was also decided to go for ICSI treatment and at that time, the father of the petitioner No.1 i.e. petitioner No.3 asked the respondent No.2 to leave the petitioner no.1 and adopt a child from any of the ashrama. She informed the same to the petitioner No.1, he also told to leave him and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 supported the petitioner no.1.