Title-Pramod v/s State of Karnataka
Court- The High Court of Karnataka
Case No. – Criminal Petition No. 1511 of 2023
Decided on- 2nd of June, 2023
Coram- J. M. Nagappasanna
Introduction
The petitioner is before the Hon’ble High Court, questioning the registration of a crime in Crime No. 61 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under sections 498A(Domestic Violence), 307(Attempt to murder), and 506(Punishment for Criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Facts
The petitioner is the sole accused, and respondent no. 2 is his wife, the complainant. The two got married on April 19, 2021. It is alleged that after certain torture, the complainant (respondent no. 2) leaves the matrimonial house on August 14, 2022. The petitioner then causes a legal notice to respondent, seeking amicable settlement and resolution of the dispute between them for the purpose of dissolution of marriage.
The said notice was issued on October 13, 2022. Later, the wife registers a complaint against petitioner (husband) on 1/12/2022, which becomes a crime under Crime No. 61 of 2022. It is the registration of a crime against the husband that drives the petitioner to this Hon’ble High Court in the subject petition.
Smt. S. Yashaswini, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the wife has registered the crime as a counterblast to the legal notice that the petitioner sent. There were no ingredients that would become offenses under Section 498A of the IPC. She submitted that this is the law laid down by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court in Criminal Petition No. 201257 of 2019 and connected case decided on April 18, 2023 and therefore, the FIR should be quashed on the sole ground that the crime is registered after receipt of a notice seeking dissolution of marriage.
On the other hand, Sri Mahesh Shetty, a learned High Court Government pleader, submitted that the investigation has just commenced and there are grave allegations against the petitioner/husband for offenses punishable under Section 498A and 307 IPC, and, therefore, the proceedings should be permitted to be continued.
The complaint, which was given by Respondent, narrates about the several instances of torture by the husband against her, both mental and physical. The wife also narrated that the husband attempted to take her life by strangling her. It is said that she has taken treatment for the injury to the spinal cord as well, due to the blows suffered from the hands of the husband.
The decision of the co-ordinate bench holding that a criminal case filed by the wife in respect of cruelty and dowry harassment against the husband and in-laws would lose any significance in case the complaint is made after receiving the divorce notice from the husband defeats the very object of Section 498A of the IPC, or even complaints made under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The purpose of introducing Chapter XX-A bringing in Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was with the objective of preventing torture of a woman by her husband or by the relatives of the husband. It was added with a view to punishing such people, aforesaid, who would engage in harassment or torture to the wife to satisfy their unlawful demands of dowry.
Question – Can a woman file a complaint of domestic violence against her husband even after a divorce?
Yes, a woman can file a complaint of domestic violence against her husband even after a divorce. The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman can file a complaint of domestic abuse against her husband under the domestic violence law even after their divorce or separation. A woman can also file a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC after divorce, provided that she alleges the incident of harassment and cruelty which could have been meted out while the marriage was subsisting. However, a woman cannot file a complaint alleging cruelty under Section 498A, IPC based on incidents that take place after a divorce.
Court analysis and Decision
The Court found that the declaration of law made by the co-ordinate Bench can be held to be applicable and restricted to the facts obtained in the said case. The submission made by the learned counsel that it is universally applicable in terms of order is unacceptable.
Therefore after hearing all the facts the Court dismissed the Criminal Petition and made it clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and shall not bind the investigation against him in Crime No. 61 of 2022 or any other proceedings.
After hearing all the facts, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Petition stating that quashing of proceedings against the husband at a stage when investigations are ongoing, would not arise on the ground that the complaint is registered immediately after receipt of the legal notice of dissolution of marriage sent by the husband.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
Written by – Nireesha Rao
Hey very interesting blog!
Thanks for the points you have provided here Yet another thing I would like to say is that personal computer memory demands generally rise along with other advances in the technologies For instance, whenever new generations of cpus are introduced to the market, there is usually a corresponding increase in the size calls for of both the computer system memory plus hard drive room This is because software program operated simply by these processor chips will inevitably boost in power to benefit from the new know-how