HRIDAY RAVINDRANATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of first respondent and quash the same.

(2.) First Information Report in Crime No.4 of 2016 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant. The allegations made on the complaint in brief, are as follows, The marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent was love cum arranged marriage. Initially a simple Arya Samaj Wedding was celebrated. At the insistence of the first petitioner and his parents, the second respondent's parents hosted a large scale ceremonious wedding and a grand reception was held at five star hotel in the outskirts of Chennai at an exorbitant cost. First petitioner's mother, viz., Anjana told the second respondent's father to gift substantial quantities of diamonds. Second respondent's parents obliged and spent their life savings on her wedding and wedding gifts. First petitioner and his mother also complained that the marriage was not done as per their expectations and after marriage, abused the second respondent and her parents as stingy and they did not shower enough gifts. First petitioner was employed with British Telecom in London and after marriage, they had shifted to London. First Petitioner insisted the second respondent's father to provide money for her initial sustenance at London. Second respondent's father gave him GBP 5000 in cash. First petitioner demanded the second respondent's parents to provide him TV and her parents transferred funds for the purchase of TV. Second respondent was engaged in fashion designing in India and she earned substantial monies for the first petitioner. She was compelled to give up her growing business and the first petitioner abused her on a daily basis. He considered that it is a waste of money to feed and shelter the second respondent. He openly declared that he married the second respondent for money and claimed to be disappointed that she did not earn much money. She earned GDP 18000 while in UK and deposited it in joint account and that was appropriated by him. First petitioner abused her in most vulgar manner on daily basis. He wanted her to bring money from her family to support his extravagant lifestyle. First petitioner's mother justified the demands and the first petitioner manhandled her several times. He used to address her as "Bastard" "Fucker" "Prostitute" very frequently and has done so in front of his friends and family members. He had also abused her parents. He was addicted to drugs and it has affected his normal sexual life and he was not able to perform intercourse with her. But he blamed the second respondent that she did not arouse his feelings and hold her responsible for his failure. He would vent his frustration of inability to perform normal sexual obligations by abusing her sexually including in sodomy and despite his shortcoming in sexual life, he visited commercial sex workers and invited elite masseuse home when she was away. First petitioner's parents would abuse her incessantly and claim that girls from their community would bring in more dowry. His father was an alcoholic and first petitioner has warned the second respondent that he is a womaniser and advised her to stay away from him. First petitioner refused to maintain her and even surrendered the lease of their house at London and forced the second respondent to return to India. Through his lawyers in UK, he has been openly demanding money from her and her family members and also writing threatening letters through his lawyer. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 2016 under Sec. 498A IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered by the Inspector of Police, W-19, All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai. Challenging the First Information Report, this quash petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent filed divorce petition before the Family Court at Brentford in UK. It was ordered on 19/4/2016 that the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent has broken down irretrievably and decreed that the said marriage be dissolved unless sufficient cause be shown to the Court within six weeks from the making of this decree why such decree should not be made absolute. Thereafter, on 26/8/2016, she was ordered to make payment to the petitioner a sum of 4,000 by 16.00 on 16/9/2016. In default to pay this amount, her application shall be dismissed. Only after this order was passed, the first petitioner had given the present complaint. Prior to this complaint, there was a complaint given on 2/7/2016. In the said complaint there is no allegations against the first petitioner's father. When the present complaint was given on 3/10/2016, serious allegations against first petitioner's father was made stating that he is a womaniser. In the divorce petition filed before the Family Court at Brentford in UK, none of the allegations made in the present complaint found a place. Thus, it is apparent on the basis of the record that the present complaint, is a motivated and false complaint given only with a motive to harass the first petitioner and his parents. Therefore, it has to be quashed. In support of his submission, he placed a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others -vs- State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, wherein, it is observed that,