IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1301/2018 BETWEEN:
1. DR.MAHESH S/O.SRI M.C.MAHADEVIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SRI M.C.MAHADEVIAH S/O.LATE MADIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. SMT.SAROJAMMA W/O.SRI M.C.MAHADEVIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SMT.ROOPA D/O.SRI M.C.MAHADEVIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS P-1 TO P-4 ARE R/AT NO.29/M, I MAIN ROAD SRINIDHI LAYOUT KONANAKUNTE J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU-560 062 5. SMT.LALITHAMMA W/O.SRI NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. SRI NAGARAJU S/O.LATE PATEL KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS P-5 & P-6 ARE R/AT NO.2/9 MARAMMANA BEEDHI NEAR GADDEKERE KUMBALAGODU BENGALURU-560 074 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.B.MONESH KUMAR FOR MS.VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KONANAKUNTE POLICE KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU-560 079 2. SMT.REKHA W/O.DR.MAHESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SRINIDHI LAYOUT KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU-560 079 NOW R/AT NO.286 6TH CROSS, HOSA BEEDI KETHKANNALLI ROAD BIDADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-560 079 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI V.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN CRIME NO.228/2017, CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.28336/2017 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are accused in CC.No.28336/2017 and facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are before this Court for quashing said proceedings.
2. Marriage between first petitioner and second respondent came to be solemnized on 01.05.2015 at Bidadi which is not in dispute. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are in laws of second respondent and petitioner No.4 is the widowed sister of first petitioner and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the junior uncle and his wife. A complaint came to be lodged on 21.05.2017 by second respondent with Konanakunte Police Station alleging that she has been physically and mentally harassed with a demand for dowry and on account of said demand not being met, she is alleged to have been physically assaulted and mentally tortured. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.228/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed in CC.No.28336/2017 for aforesaid offences which is now under challenge by the petitioners.
3. I have heard arguments of Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State.
4. It is the contention of Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners that an omnibus statement has been made by the complainant with regard to alleged harassment and based on said allegation, prosecution has been launched. It is also contended that on the basis of an omnibus statement, no order of conviction can be passed against petitioners. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that a reading of complaint does not suggest that there is any specific overt act alleged by complainant against petitioners herein and for lack of such allegation, prosecution ought not to have been launched. He would also submit that insofar as petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are concerned who are distant relatives of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and they are in no way concerned with family of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and they have been unnecessarily arraigned as accused only to dictate terms on petitioners to fall in line with demand made by complainant-second respondent and her family members. He would submit that this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can scan through charge sheet material to prima facie ascertain as to whether there is any specific overt act alleged against petitioners and if answer is in the negative, this Court can exercise its extraordinary power to quash the said proceedings. He would also submit that based on allegations made in the complaint, it cannot be gain said by the prosecution that either there being any element of mens rea on the part of accused persons for being proceeded with and continuation of the proceedings against petitioners would not only be onerous but they would also be forced to undergo the ordeal of trial for no fault, and as such it would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, he seeks for quashing of proceedings.
5. Learned Counsel for petitioners in support of his submissions has relied upon following judgments:
1. Sujit Kumar Singh & Anr. vs The State of Bihar & Anr. [Criminal Miscellaneous No.12340 of 2012, DD.08.07.2013];
2. NEELU CHOPRA v. BHARTI reported in (2009)10 SCC 184;
3. ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2014)8 SCC 273;
4. Shrikant Tamrakar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh [Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2112/2015, DD.10.12.2015];
5. PREETI GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND reported in (2010)7 SCC 667;
6. Per contra, Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State would support the case of the prosecution and contends that at the stage of considering the prayer for quashing, the ingredients of offence being present when could be discerned from the complaint it would suffice to allow the proceedings being continued and he would submit that in the instant case, allegations made against accused would prima facie indicate the offence alleged and same requires to be tried by a full fledged trial. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, at the outset it requires to be noticed that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where complaint does not disclose any offence, or is vexatious or frivolous or oppressive. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has taken by the Court, it is open for this Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that meticulous analysis of the material should be done even before trial is held to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of allegations made therein that ingredients of the offence are disclosed, then it would not be justifiable for this Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
8. That apart the defences that may be available or facts or aspects, which when established during the trial may lead to acquittal are not the grounds on which the proceedings can be quashed at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether averments made in the complaint spell out the ingredients of the offence alleged or not.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 has observed that in most of the complaints lodged under Section 498-A IPC it would be filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide are filed with the oblique motive. By further observing that Bar also has an enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that social fibre of the family life is not ruined or demolished. It has been held:
“30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under:
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.―Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.―For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means― (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.”
10. It is also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment that when such petitions are filed for quashing of the proceedings, the allegations are to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection, especially where the relatives of the husband are living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant. In other words, the word of caution by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the effect that such complaints in each case will have to be examined independently and in the event of material on record were to disclose there is semblance of truth or prima facie material, the safe course to be adopted is to refuse exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. On the other hand, if prima facie material were to disclose that there is not even iota of substance in the allegation made or third parties who would have participated in a settlement talks between two families would also be roped in as accused then in such an eventuality it would be a good ground for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings against such of those parties, who are in no way concerned or connected with the matrimonial dispute. Thus, a thin line of distinction which would be available will have to be searched, scrutinised and has to be ascertained whether there is such thin line of distinction existing or not.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEELU CHOPRA v. BHARTI reported in (2009)10 SCC 184 has observed that where allegations are vague and such allegations do not indicate that accused had committed the offence alleged or the role played by each of the accused is not indicated then in such circumstances allowing prosecution against such of those persons who had no role in the alleged crime would be an abuse of process of law. In fact, it would be apt and appropriate to note at this juncture itself that in the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court had examined the complaint carefully and held that a bare reading of the complaint itself did not establish any offence and there was only a discussion with regard to handing over and taking over of gold and other articles as such in the facts obtained in the said case, it was held that there was no specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry or consequential harassment and as such thought fit to quash the proceedings.
12. Keeping these sound principles in mind when facts on hand are examined namely, entire charge sheet material including the complaint in question, it would emerge from the complaint it has been specifically stated or alleged that complainant was initially staying at the matrimonial home for about 6-8 months and during said period, she had consummated or in other words, she was pregnant. She further alleges that her husband as well as other members of the family were not interested in the complainant having a child and first petitioner namely, her husband being a Doctor in connivance and support of other members of the family had forcefully given tablets to her for ensuring that there would be miscarriage during her pregnancy.
13. She has further alleged that on account of said act there was miscarriage and as such she had gone to her parental home for taking rest and thereafter, at the intervention of well-wishers, family members and friends there was a panchayat held during November-2016 and subsequent to said panchayat, she was made to return to her husband’s house or the matrimonial home and on her return, all the petitioners namely, accused persons started assaulting her everyday on trivial issues and abusing her on the ground that she should inform her father that a residential building is to be given to his son-in-law or in the alternate to pay Rs.30 lakhs in cash. She further alleges that on informing her father, being unable to bear the physical and mental torture meted out to her, her father agreed to give Rs.10 lakhs and accordingly, cash was paid to her husband.
14. She further alleges that physical and mental harassment perpetrated on her by the accused persons became intolerable and as such, she was forced to return back to her matrimonial home. She also alleges that since her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law threatened that she would not be allowed inside matrimonial home, she went to the place where her husband was working on 27/04/2017 and at that point of time, her husband requested her and persuaded her to have discussion with her and instead of taking her to hotel as assured, he was taken to police station and intimated the police that he was being prevented by complainant from discharging his duties. In this situation, she was forced to call her parents and returned to her parental home. She further alleges that on 21/05/2017 at about 12:30 p.m., when her parents and other well-wishers of family went to her in-laws house home to meet her father- in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and to persuade them for settling the dispute, they have informed her parents that until and unless a residential building is given to the son-in-law, there would be no settlement talks.
15. Above referred allegations made in the complaint cannot be said or held at this stage to be either omnibus, trivial, vexatious or frivolous. In fact, the jurisdictional police have made a thorough investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses and have arrived at a conclusion that there is sufficient material to press charge against accused persons and as such, charge sheet has been filed against them.
16. Though contention of Sri. K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners with regard to petitioner Nos.5 and 6 i.e., Lalithamma and Nagaraju being distant relatives and they have been unnecessarily roped in as accused looks attractive at first blush, but it is not so. In fact, a reading of the present petition does not disclose or indicate that petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are living separately. Even otherwise, it would disclose that they are also residents of Bengaluru and they are none other than sister of accused No.3 and her husband. At more than one place the complainant has specifically alleged that accused Nos.5 and 6 have also assaulted her. As such, at this juncture it would not be apt and appropriate to analyze the said allegation as well as charge sheet material by microscopic examination or hold a mini trial to arrive at a conclusion whether it is a omnibus statement or otherwise. It is for the learned Trial Judge to examine this aspect after recording of evidence to ascertain factual aspects. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that allegations made in the complaint by respondent No.2 cannot be construed or held at this stage as an omnibus allegation or it does not contain any material particulars. The overt act of the accused persons can be either joint or independent and in this instant case, the complainant has made a specific allegation against all the accused persons together having joined in torturing her physically and mentally. That would suffice to hold that trial should continue against all the petitioners. It cannot be expected that complainant has to state every inch of detail in the complaint by specifying as to how the accused persons either assaulted her, tortured her physically and mentally. Suffice it to say that statement to the effect the complainant was physically tortured or mentally tortured and the persons who had committed such acts would satisfy the requirement for proceeding against the accused for the offence alleged. In the instant case, such allegations are clearly found in the complaint and as such, contention of Sri. K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners cannot be accepted.
For the afore stated reasons, the petition stands dismissed.
In view of petition having been dismissed, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE LB/SMJ