IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2880/2013 BETWEEN:
1.COL A D SARDANA S/O M.D. SARDANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O 504, IC-2, ESSEL TOWERS M.G. ROAD, GURGAON HARYANA 122 001.
2.SRI.M.D. SARDANA S/O LATE K.C. SARDANA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT SECTOR-2, PANCHUKULA (HR) HARYANA 134 102.
3.SMT. SHASHI DUTTA SARDANA W/O M.D. SARDANA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT SECTOR-2, PANCHUKULA (HR) HARYANA 134 102. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR.ADV. FOR MS.MELANIE SEBASTIAN, ADV. ) AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS POLICE BANGALORE 560 004 2.SMT. SANDHYA SARDANA W/O OF COL. A.D. SARDANA CARE OF:
SRI. BRIJMOHAN O.407, SECTOR 37-A CHANDIGARH 160 017. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHICH IS ASSIGNED IN C.C.NO.23620/2012 BY THE OFFICE OF THE II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY AND ALSO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.23620/2012 (ARISING OUT OF CR. NO.38/2010 OF BASAVANAGUDI MAHILA P.S.) ON THE FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking to quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Dildar Shiralli , learned HCGP for Respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is served and unrepresented.
3. Perused the records.
4. The case of the prosecution is that, petitioners herein subjected the second respondent to cruelty and ill- treatment in the matrimonial home and in the year 1997 after her discharge from the hospital while she was residing with the petitioner in Chandigarh, she was confined in a room, was ill-treated and used to call her as mentally ill person. In this regard, a complaint was lodged by the complainant but, after settlement, she was taken to
residing at Kariyappa Colony. On 3.12.2008, accused no.1 came there and assaulted her threatening her to vacate the quarters. Thereafter, she started residing in a rented house. Even thereafter, at the instance of accused nos.2 and 3, accused no.1 has been issuing threats to the complainant.
5. Learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, at the earlier instance, complainant had lodged a similar complaint against the petitioners and the same was withdrawn by her after mutual settlement. Under the said circumstances, the prosecution could not have filed charge sheet in respect of the incident that has taken place prior to settlement in the year 2005.
6. Further, referring to various other complaints filed by the complainant before the Civil Court at Chandigarh and the pleadings made therein, learned Sr.Counsel emphasized that the assertions made by the complainant in the said proceedings clearly indicate that since March 2007, parties have been residing separately. Under the said circumstances, there was no occasion for any one of the petitioners herein to inflict cruelty on the complainant and therefore, the charges against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act are wholly baseless. Referring to the litigation between the parties, learned counsel pointed out that in the affidavit sworn to by the respondent-complainant she has asserted that the petitioners are not in possession of the dowry articles, and hence the charges under the provisions of DP Act also cannot stand against the petitioners.
7. In so far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, learned senior counsel argued that the allegations made in the charge sheets, even if accepted uncontroverted, do not constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act in so far as accused nos. 2 and 3 are concerned and thus prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.
8. Learned HCGP is unable to answer any of the contentions raised by the learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners except repeating the allegations made in the complaint.
9. On going through the material on record, it is noticed that the case of the prosecution is that after marriage, the complainant was ill-treated by the petitioners in the matrimonial home. But, the specific allegations in this regard are directed only against accused no.1 and not against accused nos. 2 and 3. The circumstances discussed above do not indicate that accused nos. 2 and 3 were residing with accused no.1 and complainant at any point of time. All the material allegations are directed only against accused no.1. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in respect of earlier incident, the second respondent (complainant) and accused no.1 had entered into a compromise, yet, in view of specific allegations made in the charge sheet that even after the compromise, accused no.1 had resorted to assault and threaten the complainant, there is sufficient material to proceed against accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the absence of any material to show that dowry articles are returned to the complainant, the allegations made in the charge sheet with regard to alleged offence under the provisions of DP Act cannot be quashed in so far as accused no.1 is concerned.
10. However, insofar as accused nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, on going through the charge sheet, I do find any reliable material in proof of the complicity of accused nos.2 and 3 in the alleged offences. The circumstances discussed above go to show that accused nos. 2 and 3 have been residing separately. The only allegation made against them is that they asked the complainant to abide by the directions of accused no.1. In the absence of material to show that accused nos. 2 and 3 have inflicted any acts of cruelty on the complainant, the proceedings against them require to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Petition filed by accused no.1 (petitioner no.1) is dismissed. Petition filed by accused nos. 2 and 3 (i.e. petitioners 2 and 3) is hereby allowed. The proceedings pending in CC No.23620/2012 are quashed only in so far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 (accused nos. 2 and 3) are concerned. The trial shall continue against accused no.1 (i.e. petitioner no.1.) in accordance with law.
.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-