IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4157 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4158 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4157 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
BHOGAVALLI PRABHAKAR RAO S/O LATE BHOGAVALLI RAYUDU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3RD FLOOR FRIENDS COURT, INFRONT OF GOVERNORS BUNGALOW DASAPALLA HILLS, VISHAKAPATNAM-530003.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI: Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI: NISHANTH A V, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001 2. MRS. NEELIMA B C/O L.K.VISHWANATH, 396/A, SADHGURU, 4TH MAIN, M.J.NAGAR, HOSPET-583201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI: PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.13826/2015 IN THE COURT OF C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4158 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
USHA RANI BHOGAVALLI W/O BHOGAVALLI PRABHAKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3RD FLOOR FRIENDS COURT, IN FRONT OF GOVERNORS BUNGALOW DASAPALLA HILLS, VISHAKAPATNAM-530003. PETITIONER (BY SRI: Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI: NISHANTH A V, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001 2. MRS. NEELIMA B C/O L.K.VISHWANATH, 396/A, SADHGURU, 4TH MAIN, M.J.NAGAR, HOSPET-583201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI: PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.13826/2015 IN THE COURT OF C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned senior counsel for petitioners, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the charge sheet laid against them for the alleged offences punishable under sections 498A, 506 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Addl. CMM, Bengaluru in PCR No.2604/2015 seeking prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not prima-facie make out the ingredients of the above offences, on the other hand, the complainant has made inconsistent and contradictory statements in her further statement indicating that false evidence has been gathered by the prosecution only with a view to implicate the petitioners. Referring to relevant averments made in the complaint, learned senior counsel emphasized that the said allegations do not make out the offences under section 498A IPC or under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and thus seeks to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
5. Refuting the submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners as well as learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 referring to the material collected by the investigating agency pointed out that in addition to the averments made in the complaint, cogent material is produced to show that huge sum of money was transferred to the account of the accused by way of dowry and in the wake of this positive evidence produced by the prosecution, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. On considering the rival submissions and on going through the material on record, it is noticed that clear averments constituting the ingredients of criminal offences are made in the private complaint lodged by the second respondent. Though there are some inconsistent and discrepancies in the further statement of the complaint, yet, the same cannot be analysed at this stage. What is relevant to be noted is that the material produced by the investigating agency by way of bank extracts and receipts indicate credit of money to the accounts of the accused persons. According to the prosecution, said amount was paid by way of dowry. Whether the said amount was paid in respect of any other transaction could be substantiated by the petitioners only during trial. As prima-facie material is available in proof of the accusations made against the petitioners, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, having regard to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for petitioners, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek discharge before the trial court on the same grounds urged in these petitions or any other grounds available under law.
Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-