IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8835 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. K K KUMARASWAMY S/O K.P.KRISHNEGOWDA AGED 72 YEARS 2. KRISHNAVATHI W/O K K KUMARASWAMY AGED 66 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KUMBARADI VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPRUA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 (BY SRI: MAHESH C M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAKALESHAPURA POLICE STATION, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING ... PETITIONERS BANGALORE-560 001 2. SMT. HITHASHRI W/O PRAMESH AGED 32 YEARS KUMBARADI VILLAGE HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.246/2016 REGISTERED WITH SAKALESHAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, SAKALESHAPURA, HASSAN UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 342 OF IPC READ WITH SECTIONS 3, 4 OF D.P ACT FILED IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, SAKALESHAPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them in Cr.No.246/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 506,149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’). The said FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2-Smt.Hithashri.
3. According to the complainant, she was married to accused No.1 on 09.11.2012 as per Hindu customs. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 was given gold ornaments namely neck chain, finger ring, bracelet in all approximately weighing around 100 gms. She has a child aged about three years. After the marriage, for some days, she was looked after well by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. Thereafter, all the three started harassing her physically and mentally to bring dowry from her parents. When the same was informed to her parents, they came to her house and consoled the family members. In this regard, Panchayat was also held. It is further alleged that on 09.10.2016, when the complainant and her mother-in-law/accused No.2 were in the kitchen, the complainant asked her mother-in-law to return her ornaments pledged by her. Accused No.2-mother-in-law started shouting at her and started fighting and assaulted her with ladle near the neck and also caught hold of her neck and dashed her to the wall and accused No.1/husband who was present in the house intervened and abused her and kicked her and took a gun found in their house and threatened her that he will shoot her. At that time, accused No.3-father-in-law gave a blow on her cheek. Thereafter, her younger brother, who had come to her house intervened and took her in his car to C.I. Hospital, Sakaleshpura, for treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners do not attract the offences alleged in the FIR. The averments made in the complaint indicate that only accused No.1, petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing alongwith the complainant in Kumbardi village, Mangala Devi Estate, Hanubaalu Hobli, Sakaleshpur Taluk. The allegations made in the complaint in regard to ill-treatment and harassment given to the complainant do not attract either the offences under Sections 498A and 324 of Indian Penal Code or the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and abuse of process of law.
6. Learned SPP-II for respondent No.1-State however submits that the allegations made in the complaint squarely attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The complainant has narrated the sequence of events and the overt-acts committed by each of the accused. The matter is under investigation. Therefore, quashing of proceedings does not arise and seeks for dismissal of the petition.
7. Perused the complaint. It indicates that after the marriage, the complainant was residing in her matrimonial house along with accused-1 to 3. The only allegation made against the petitioners herein is that after her marriage with accused No.1, she was looked after well. After few days, she was ill- treated and harassed by the petitioners herein asking her to give jewelry to repay the loan; she was harassed mentally and physically by the petitioners asking her to divorce accused No.1; on 09.10.2016, while the complainant asked petitioner No.2/accused No.2 to return her ornaments which were pledged, accused No.2 assaulted her with ladle on her neck and accused No.1 gave a blow on her cheek. These allegations, in my view, do not attract the ingredients of the offences in so far as the petitioners are concerned. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the petitioners herein demanded any dowry from the complainant. By any stretch of imagination, the said statement cannot be construed as dowry demand. ‘Dowry’ is defined under Section 2 of the DP Act, which reads as under:
“2. `Dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:
a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties but does not include dowry or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security’ has the same meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
8. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the petitioners herein demanded dowry either in connection with the marriage or in consideration thereof. Therefore, in my view, the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners herein do not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against them. Consequently, the proceeding initiated against the petitioners is abuse of process of law.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part. The prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 324 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act is quashed in so far as the petitioners herein namely accused No.3-K.K. Kumarswamy, S/o K.P. Krishnegowda and accused No.2-Krishnavathi, W/o K.K. Kumarswamy are concerned. Proceedings shall continue against the petitioners only for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code in accordance with law.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE