The Karnataka High Court stayed the investigation into a man charged under Section 498A IPC, following a complaint from his wife alleging he denied her French fries. Justice M Nagaprasanna deemed the complaint trivial and ordered the stay.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court intervened in a case involving a man facing charges under Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges stemmed from an unusual complaint lodged by his wife, alleging that he had denied her the opportunity to eat French fries. Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, observed that the nature of the complaint was trivial and therefore ordered a stay on the investigation against the husband.
The court’s decision to stay the investigation was based on the reasoning that –
“Permitting any investigation against the husband would constitute an abuse of the legal process and place undue emphasis on the wife’s claim that she was denied French fries at the relevant time.”
The court further ordered that-
“An interim order shall be issued to stay all investigations concerning the husband.”
highlighting the court’s stance on the frivolous nature of the complaint.
The husband had filed a petition in the High Court, seeking to quash the investigation. His legal counsel argued that the complaint was baseless and that continuing the investigation would only serve to harass his client. The petition also noted that the man was employed in the United States and that the investigation was preventing him from fulfilling his professional obligations abroad.
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh HC: Withholding Food Over Unmet Dowry is Cruelty
In response to the wife’s complaint, the husband argued that during the six years they lived together in the United States before the birth of their child, she often made him perform all the household chores.
He further claimed in his submission to the court that-
“Instead of spending time on the phone, she spent it watching Pakistani dramas.”
The wife’s complaint had earlier led to the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) against the husband, which barred him from leaving the country. The LOC was issued after she claimed that-
“He had refused to let her eat French fries, rice, and meat shortly after she gave birth to their child.”
The husband’s legal team contended that the LOC was unwarranted and that it was being “used as a weapon” against him, as Justice Nagaprasanna also noted during the hearing.
Acknowledging the husband’s argument and the need for him to return to the United States for work, the court granted him permission to travel on the condition that he provides an undertaking. The undertaking required him to assure the court that he would cooperate with the investigating authorities and would not “vanish” once he left the country.
Justice Nagaprasanna’s observations about the misuse of legal provisions in this case were clear. He pointed out that the complaint seemed to be an abuse of the process of law, as it was rooted in what the court deemed to be a trivial matter. The judge emphasized that such complaints, if entertained, could undermine the integrity of the legal system.
The court had previously stayed the investigation against the man’s parents, who were also named in the complaint under Section 498A. The wife’s allegations against them were similarly viewed as lacking in substance, further solidifying the court’s view that the entire case was of a frivolous nature.
