IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.156/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Arjun Kundapur, S/o Dattatreya, Aged about 34 years, Residing at No/100, Keerthi Apartments, 1st Floor, 3rd Cross, SVK Layout, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 560 049.
2. Sri.Dattatreya, S/o Ganapa Devadiga, Aged about 63 years, Residing at Kundapur, Udupi – 576 201.
3. Smt. Jayashree Dattatreya, W/o Sri.Dattatreya, Aged about 56 years, Residing at Kundapur, Udupi – 576 201.
……Petitioners (By Sri P.P.Hegde, Adv.) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Through Basaveshwaranagar Police, State Public Prosecutor.
2. Dr.P.Pramitha, W/o Arjun Kundapur, Aged about 31 years, Residing at No./100, Keerthi Apartments, 1st Floor, 3rd Cross, SVK Layout, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 560 049.
…Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. S.P.P. for R1;
Sri. Shrinivas Chalageri, Advocate for R2 (Absent)) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint and F.I.R. in Cr.No.414/2016 registered in Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, for the offence P/U/S 307, 498A, 313, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act pending on the file of V A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. S.P.P.-2 for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them in Cr.No.414/2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 498A, 313, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. Petitioners No.2 and 3 did not live with the complainant at any point of time. The allegations made against them are vague and general in nature. Even with regard to the allegations made against accused No.1, there is no truth or substance therein. Under the said circumstances, registration of FIR against the petitioners being an abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned S.P.P.-2 appearing for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of above offences and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings as sought for by the petitioners.
5. On perusal of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, it is seen that the marriage between complainant/respondent No.2 and accused No.1 had taken place on 03.06.2011. In the complaint, it is stated that six months after the marriage, the in-laws had taken gold from her and same was returned to her. There are no allegations whatsoever that either at the time of marriage or any time thereafter, any of the petitioners herein demanded any dowry from the complainant or her parents. The only allegation in this regard is that about five years back accused asked the complainant to bring money from her parents house for purchase of a flat and at that time, her father adjusted Rs.7,00,000/- by pledging her ornaments. This allegation does not prima facie constitute the offence of dowry demand within the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. A reading of the complaint indicates that all throughout, the complainant was living with Accused No.1 in Bengaluru. There are allegations that during their stay in Bengaluru, on 18.12.2016, accused No.1 quarreled with her and assaulted her. To this extent, there appears to be sufficient material constituting the offence of assault.
But, insofar as petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, I do not find anything in the complaint suggesting their involvement in the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code or the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act. Except making an omnibus statement in the complaint that the accused No.1 committed the offence at the instance and provocation of the accused Nos.2 and 3, the complainant has not disclosed any specific act even with regard to the alleged abetment by petitioners No.2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3). Thus on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution initiated against the petitioners being malafide and ulteriorly motivated, is liable to be quashed to prevent any further abuse of court. To this extent the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition filed by petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) is dismissed. The investigation shall continue against accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Petition filed by petitioners No.2 and 3 (accused No.2 and 3) is allowed. The FIR registered against them in Cr.No414/2016 by the Basaweshara Nagara Police for the offence punishable under Sections 307,498A, 313, 323, 324, 504, and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the V ACMM, Bengaluru is quashed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A Nos.2/17 and 1/18 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE psg