IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6337 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. CHETHANA B S W/O VIJAY B.H., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC:ADVOCATE, R/AT HOUSE NO.161, 6TH CROSS, NAVILU ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570023.
2. GIRIJAMMA B W/O NAGARAJU P, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/AT HOUSE NO.31, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, AVALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560026. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: DINESHKUMAR RAO K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALURU-01.
2. SHEELA K W/O B S RAJEEV, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT BHAGIRATHA NILAYA, SHANESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, KADUR TOWN, CHICKMAGALUR-577548. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: K.S.GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1177/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 498(A), 504, 307, 323 AND 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. C.J. (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in the charge sheet laid under sections 498A, 323, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act(for short ‘ D.P. Act’).
3. I have gone through the charge sheet. There is nothing in the entire charge sheet to indicate that the petitioners herein subjected the second respondent (CW-1) to cruelty or harassment in the matrimonial home at any point of time. On the other hand, a reading of the charge sheet and the material produced alongwith the charge sheet indicate that after marriage, second respondent(CW-1) resided in her parents’ house and thereafter she and accused No.1 were residing in a rented house. All the allegations in the charge sheet are directed against accused No.1.
4. Insofar as the present petitioners and other accused are concerned, common and omnibus allegations are made in the charge sheet as well as in the statement of the complainant to the effect that when respondent No.2(CW-1) was staying in her parents’ house, all the accused persons demanded her not to spend her salary and that her entire salary had to be handed over to her father-in-law. Other allegations made in the charge sheet are that the amount said to have been paid by way of dowry was credited to the account of accused No.1. No material is produced to show that the petitioners herein either demanded any part of money from the second respondent or made any demand from her constituting the ingredients of offences under the provision of IPC or under the provision of D.P. Act. A perusal of the material on record indicate that the petitioners never lived with second respondent and accused No.1 in the matrimonial home at any point of time. Under the said circumstances, petitioners having been implicated in the alleged offences without any basis, the prosecution of the petitioners has to be held as wholly illegal amounting to abuse of process of Court. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Charge Sheet in C.C.No.1177/2016 pending on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kadur, Chikmagalur is quashed only insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned. Trial shall proceed against other accused in accordance with law.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE