VIVEK KAWARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 23.11.2013 passed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 1006/2013 in taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused in respect of the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961.

(2.) The facts in brief:

(3.) Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance in respect of the above mentioned offences, despite there being no incriminating material against the petitioner for commission of the offences. While emphasizing on the allegation of offence under Sec. 498A of IPC, it is his further submission that, during the compromise entered into between the parties before this Court, the wife had undertaken to co -operate in the matrimonial life happily and will not cause any harassment either to her husband or for herself in future, if any medical attention is required for the wife, it was agreed that the husband would provide the same and wife will avail the same. This Court had issued a direction to both the parties to abide by the terms of compromise petition. Accordingly, wife was obliged to cooperate and take treatment for the Schzophrenia/mental illness she is suffering. There is evidence in this regard by the expert doctor in the matrimonial case also. Above all will indicate that it was the wife who was the troubleshooter, though she had undertaken before this Court to lead a happy married life. Another complaint lodged by her is for the offences punishable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending. The statement of the witnesses is inconsistent with each other. A reading of Sec. 498A of IPC in juxtaposition with the complaint would not disclose ingredients of Sec. 498A of I.P.C. in the complaint. More particularly, the first proviso to Sec. 498A is not attracted. Admittedly, there is no physical torture on her which would have been hazardous, endangering her life, limb or health. Assuming for a while, the husband had not provided food for herself and the child for a day, it is a stray incident and would not fall within the category of offence under Sec. 498A of IPC.