In the Matter of Prajith R. v. X a plea objection to the petitioner’s criminal charges under Sections 498-A, 504, 507, and 417 of the Penal Code, 1860 The complainant, who was already married, was sent to her parent’s home by her husband when she became pregnant. After two years, the complainant and their daughter went to Bengaluru, and the husband later returned. After six months, the husband did, however, depart once more. The complainant found a job at Marico Marketing after the husband left for a second time. The petitioner and the complaint first met here. The petitioner allegedly promised the complainant that they will be married even after she disclosed their age difference and the existence of her daughter to him. The complainant, however, claims that the petitioner broke his promise to be married, which is why she filed a complaint alleging violations of Sections 498-A, 504, 507, and 417 of the IPC. The petitioner came before the court as a result of the crime’s registration.
The petitioner’s solicitors argued that although he had assisted the complainant in her time of need, he had not promised to marry her. The charges of a breach are unfounded because the complainant is still married. It was further claimed that the petitioner could only be described as the complainant’s “paramour” and nothing more.
According to the complainant, she is neither here nor there given the absurdity of her situation. It was alleged that the petitioner made a commitment to marry her and has since broken that agreement. According to the argument, the petitioner, who was living in Malaysia at the time the offences were reported, regularly sent her money to cover her expenses for two years, demonstrating his marital qualities.
Analysis of Courts Order
Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court’s Single Judge Bench granted the petition and ruled that since the plaintiff was already married, there was no possibility of cheating or breaking the pledge of marriage. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be charged with the aforementioned offence. The Court further decided that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the complainant’s expenses just because the petitioner contributed some money to help out while the complainant was in need because there is no formal legal relationship between the two parties. As a result, the petitioner is not charged with the crime of dowry harassment and cruelty under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.
The Court emphasised that the charges under Sections 498-A and 417 of the IPC cannot be brought against the petitioner and complainant because there is no marital connection between them. In addition, the Court expressed confusion over how Section 504, IPC applies to the facts of this case because the clause deals with provocation that will disturb the peace of the community. The Court emphasised that criminal intimidation by anonymous communication is covered by Section 507 of the IPC. However, the petitioner hasn’t made any anonymous communications on the issue at hand. The contested complaint was dismissed by the court.