IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7249 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. MR H T MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE MR H J TANDAVA MURTHY AGED 55 YEARS C/O MR SHIVANNA 6TH CROSS BEHIND HELIPAD UDAYAGIRI HASSAN-573201 2. MR H T UMESH KUMAR S/O LATE MR H J TANDAVA MURTHY AGED 48 YEARS "SHRI TANDAVESHWARA NILAYA" NO. 278, 2ND MAIN MUTHYALA NAGAR NEAR M.E.S. ROAD, GOKULA BANGALORE-560054 3. MS H T VIJAYA KUMARI D/O LATE MR H J TANDAVA MURTHY AGED 50 YEARS "SHRI TANDAVESHWARA NILAYA" NO. 2809/A, 5TH CROSS GANDHI NAGAR MANDYA-571401 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EAST POLICE STATION MANDYA TOWN REPRESENTED THROUGH THE S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. MRS H K GEETHA W/O MR H T SATHEESH KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHRI TANDAVESHWARA NILAYA NO. 1218/A, 3RD CROSS ASHOKANAGAR MANDYA-571401 (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI: F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.338/11 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:16.1.13 PASSED BY THE JMFC, MANDYA IN C.C.NO.62/13 TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND FURTHER BE c) QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.62/13 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MANDYA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in C.C.No.62/2013 registered for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 323, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo alongwith copy of the death certificate to the effect that petitioner No.1 Sri. H.T. Mohan Kumar died on 11.03.2019.
3. The undisputed facts are that accused No.1 married respondent No.2 on 05.11.2008. She lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 on 19.12.2011 alleging that at the time of marriage, at the instance of accused No.1 and his family members, 150gm of gold and cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs was paid to accused No.1 and his family members. It is further alleged that after marriage, she was ill-treated and harassed in the matrimonial home. On 06.06.2010, she gave birth to a girl child and thereafter she was not taken to matrimonial home; a panchayath was convened in this regard and later he was sent to the house of accused No.1 in the month of September 2011; but, even thereafter, accused No.1 abused and assaulted her.
4. On going through the above complaint, I find that the material allegations are directed mainly against accused No.1. A reading of the complaint indicates that after marriage, respondent No.2 lived with accused No.1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners herein resided with respondent No.2 at any point of time. On the other hand, in the complaint, it is stated that petitioner No.3 was residing in Mandya. These averments therefore go to show that only accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing together. Even the allegation of assault is directed only against accused No.1, as a result, the facts averred in the complaint do not disclose a case for prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code.
Insofar as the offence under Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the allegations made in the compliant as well as in the charge sheet are vague and general in nature. Except making a bald statement in the complaint that at the time of marriage, 150gm of gold and a cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs was paid to accused No.1 and his parents, it is not specified as to when the said amount was paid and the manner in which it was paid. The charge sheet does not contain any material in proof of receipt or payment of dowry. The manner in which these allegations are made in the charge sheet indicate that the petitioners herein are roped in by the respondent sheerly out of spite and to wreck vengeance against accused No.1 with whom, respondent No.2 appears to have serious matrimonial differences. The material on record does not disclose the involvement of the petitioners in any of the above offences. No material is produced by the investigating agency in proof of ingredients of Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. As a result, prosecution of the petitioners, in my view, is wholly illegal and amount to abuse of process of Court.
For the above reasons, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.62/2013 on the file of learned Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Mandya are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-