IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5367 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT JYOTHI W/O ARAVINDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. ARAVINDA S/O PALAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O 2ND CROSS, SIDDARUDHANAGARA, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANGERE, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. SMT. BHAVANI.M W/O MADHUKUMAR S AGE: MAJOR, R/O 1982/1, 6TH CROSS, SIDDAVEERAPPA BADAVANE, DAVANGERE-577006. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: SAMPATH BAPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.432/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC-III COURT, DAVANAGERE, SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.432/2016 filed for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and perused the records.
3. The charge sheet is laid against the petitioners and other accused based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 18.5.2014. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.5 lakhs, 32 tholas of gold, 2 kgs. of silver articles, a watch of Rs.22,000/- and other articles of value of Rs.45,000/- was given by way of dowry at the instance of accused, in spite of it, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in the matrimonial house. It is alleged that as and when petitioners herein were coming to the matrimonial house, they were taunting the complainant and were instigating the other accused persons to demand additional dowry from the complainant and her parents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were residing separately for the last 17 years. There is nothing on record to show that they resided with the complainant and her husband in the matrimonial house at any point of time. The allegations made against the petitioners are not specific and are general in nature. The complainant has not narrated any specific instance of alleged cruelty or ill-treatment. Under the said circumstance, prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 have argued in support of the impugned charge sheet contending that specific allegations are leveled against the petitioners, which constitute the ingredients of offences under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. In the complaint as well as in her statement the complainant has stated that at the time of marriage, a cash of Rs.5 lakhs and 25 tholas of gold were given to the bride and bridegroom. There are no allegations whatsoever that the petitioners herein either demanded any dowry from the complainant or her father at the time of marriage or that any part of the said amount or dowry was paid into the hands of petitioners. Under the said circumstances, the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot stand against the petitioners.
8. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is concerned, vague and general allegations are levelled in the charge sheet to the effect that whenever petitioners were visiting the matrimonial house of the complainant, they were pestering accused No.1 to demand additional dowry from the complainant and were taunting and ill-treating the complainant. These allegations even if accepted as true, in my opinion, do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
9. In order to constitute an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the cruelty inflicted on the victim should be 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 of the woman or with a view to coerce her or any person relating to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Such allegations are conspicuously lacking in the instant case. Except making omnibus statement that all the accused persons were ill-treating and were instigating accused No.1 to demand additional dowry from the complainant and her parents, there is no material to show that accused No.1, at any point of time demanded additional dowry from the complainant and her parents after solemnization of her marriage. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the implication of petitioners in the alleged offences, appears to be vexatious and obliquely motivated apparently to settle scores with her husband and mother- in-law against whom the complainant was having serious differences. In that view of the matter, prosecution of the petitioners being wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.432/2016 on the file of JMFC-III, Davangere are quashed only insofar as petitioners namely, accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. The trial shall proceed against accused Nos.1 and 2, in accordance with law.
In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE