J T RAJEEV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by petitioners 1 to 3 under section 482, Cr. P. C. seeking to set aside the order dated 15. 6. 2001 passed in C. C. 271/01 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, hiriyur, registering the above case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 498a and 506, IPC readwith sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to quash the entire proceedings therein.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that the petitioner no. 1 who is none other than the husband of respondent no. 2 herein, filed a petitioner before the Family Court at Bangalore, in M. C. 1278/00 under section 13 (l) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent no. 2 by way of divorce. On being notified of filing of such case, the 2nd respondent resisted the petition and filed counter statement. When the matter reached trial, the parties examined themselves as PW1 and RW1 respectively. The 1st petitioner-husband got marked 19 documents, while the 2nd respondent-wife did not produce any documentary evidence. During the course of cross-examination, she admitted that she was being looked after well by her husband and she was not subjected to any cruelty or ill-treatment. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the 2nd respondent-wife has filed a complaint of dowry harassment against the petitioners.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed in M. C. 1278 of 00, the 1st petitioner herein filed M. F. A. 1476 of 2005 before this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 27. 9. 2007, found that the trial Court was in error in holding that the petitioner-husband had failed to prove acts of cruelty alleged against the 2nd respondent-wife, and that the latter has filed a false case against him for dowry harassment only to harass him. Therefore, the co-ordinate Bench, noting the fact that the appellant before it (husband) volunteered to deposit Rs. 3,500/- p. m. for his minor daughter towards maintenance apart from Rs. 5,00,000/- deposit towards the marriage expenses of the minor daughter born out of wedlock to the couple, reversed the finding of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. After disposal of the said M. F. A. In favour of the 1st petitioner-husband, the petitioners have preferred this petition, seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against them at the instance of respondent No. 2 herein, registered in CC 271 of 2001 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Hiriyur, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 498a and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act.