IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3875/2014 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Jayalakshmamma, W/o. late Jayaramaiah, 56 years, C/o. Sri. Renuka Udaya Kumar, First Floor, Near Vivek Hospital, Sanjay Gandhi Road, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru – 560 068.
2. Smt. Roopa, W/o. Sri. Ramu, 32 years, 3. Sri. R. Ramu, S/o. Sri. Ramakrishna, 35 years, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Resident of Head Master Colony, Chandapura, Anekal Road, Bengaluru – 560 081.
4. Sri. J. Mahesh, S/o. late Jayaramaiah, 26 years, C/o. Sri. Renuka Udaya Kumar, First Floor, Near Vivek Hospital, Sanjay Gandhi Road, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru – 560 068. ... Petitioners (By Sri. R.B. Sadasivappa, Advocate) AND:
1. State by Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Vanitha, W/o. Srinath, Aged about 28 years, Tashkint Nagar, Maruthinagar (Post), Bhadravathi (Taluk), Shimoga District – 577 201. ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri. S. Rajendra, Advocate for Sri. S.V. Prakash, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the V Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH-13 (FTC-IX), Bengaluru in Crl.R.P.250/2013 and order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the 3rd ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.37218/2011 and allow the application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and discharge the petitioners by allowing the above petition.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.37218/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet do not constitute any offence insofar as the petitioners are concerned. It is contended that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague and general in nature. The complainant has not alleged any specific instance of cruelty or ill-treatment so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 498A of IPC. There are no allegations whatsoever against the petitioners either with regard to the demand or acceptance of the dowry. As a result, prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant herself was guilty of causing cruelty to her husband/accused No.1 and at the instance of accused No.1, marriage between the complainant and accused No.1 ended in a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for continuation of the prosecution against the present petitioners.
4. Disputing the submission, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the decree passed by the Matrimonial Court in M.C.No.58/2011 is challenged by respondent No.2 and the matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court in MFA No.1762/2019. Further he submitted that the charge sheet contains specific allegations constituting offences alleged against the petitioners and therefore, there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
5. The learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the material on record indicates that before marriage a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the joint account of accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore there is prima-facie material in support of the charges leveled against the petitioners and hence, there is no case for quashing of the proceedings.
6. Considered the submission and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 12.11.2009. It is also not in dispute that in the wedlock respondent No.2 has begotten a girl child. The averments made in the complaint indicate that respondent No.2 lived in the matrimonial home only for a period of five months. According to her, when she was pregnant, she was sent to her parents home and thereafter she was not taken back to the matrimonial home. The records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicate that M.C.No.58/2011 was filed in the year 2011. These documents therefore clearly indicate that between 2009-2011 parties were not residing together at any point of time. There are no averments whatsoever that respondent No.2 resided with the petitioners herein at any point of time. The allegations made against the petitioners are vague and general in nature. The complainant has not mentioned even a single instance amounting to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC.
8. On the other hand, the decree passed by the Matrimonial Court in M.C.No.58/2011 indicates that accused No.1 himself was a victim of cruelty at the hands of the complainant. No doubt, the said decree is challenged before the Appellate Court, nonetheless, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the allegations made in the complaint, in my view, do not prima-facie constitute the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Even the contention of the learned Addl. SPP that the Investigating Agency has collected material to show that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the joint account of accused Nos.1 and 2 before marriage is concerned, there are no allegations in the compliant that the said amount was paid by way of dowry or that accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded the said amount from the complainant or her parents as dowry. On the other hand, in the complaint it is stated that at the time of marriage cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and quarter K.G. of gold and silver were given without specifying as to whom the said amount was given. In the said circumstances, the said amount even if it has been transferred cannot be construed as payment made towards demand of dowry so as to make out an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that prosecution initiated against the petitioners is wholly baseless and appears to be obliquely motivated to settle score with her husband/accused No.1, who had instituted proceedings against the complainant for dissolution of the marriage.
10. The material on record indicate that respondent No.2 has abused the criminal process by taking recourse to criminal action, without any justification and basis. Consequently, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.37218/2011 pending on the file of the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed only insofar as the petitioners namely accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. The trial shall proceed only against accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV