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.3062 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Kempamma, W/o Dodda Veeraiah, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.842, Kempe Gowda Main Road, BHEL Layout, Pattanagere Rajarajeshwarinagara, Bangalore-560098.
2. Sri. Dodda Veeraiah, S/o late Kariyanna, Aged about 62 years, Residing at No.842, Kempe Gowda Main Road, BHEL Layout, Pattanagere Rajarajeshwarinagara, Bangalore-560098.
3. Smt. Lokeshwari, W/o Chandrashekar, Aged about 26 years, Residing at No.21, 11th Cross, 5th Main, Chowdappa Layout, Bapujinagar, Mysore Road, Bangalore-560026.
4. Smt. Jayalakshmi, W/o Mariyappa, Aged about 39 years, Residing at No.21, 11th Cross, 5th Main, Chowdappa Layout, Bapujinagar, Mysore Road, Bangalore-560026.
5. Smt. Vijayalakshmi, W/o late Nagaraju, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.1097, 3rd Cross, E-Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560010.
6. Sri. Mariappa, S/o Javare Gowda, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.21, 11th Cross, 5th Main, Chowdappa Layout, Bapujinagar, Mysore Road, Bangalore-560026. …Petitioners (By Sri. H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by Byatarayanapura Police Station, Mysore Road, Bangalore, Represented by SPP, High Court Buildings, Bangalore-560001.
2. Smt. Baby Rekha.P, W/o Umesh.D, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.4/2-6, 1st Main, Behind G.S.School, Mysore Road, Bapujinagar, Bangalore-560026. ... Respondents (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R-1, Sri. A.Devaraja, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet filed by the complainant in Byatarayanapura Police Station, in Cr.No.248/2011, dated 31.07.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, which is required in C.C.No.34679/2011 and pending on the file of the III A.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and also learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioners and accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners herein were summoned by the Court and after hearing them, charges were framed against them for the above offences and the matter was set down for evidence and the complainant/respondent No.2 was examined in chief. At that stage, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The order framing the charge is not challenged by the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have sought for quashing of the charge sheet, the Court is required to look into the merits of the case, so as to decide whether the prosecution launched against the petitioners is sustainable for want of necessary allegations constituting the offence.
4. Learned counsel has taken me through the complaint as well as the charge sheet and has emphasized that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offence insofar as the petitioners are concerned. He contends that all the allegations made in the charge sheet are directed only against accused No.1. The circumstance of the case also disclose that the petitioners viz., accused Nos.2 to 6 resided separately from the complainant and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioners herein to subject the petitioner to cruelty or to ill treat her within the meaning of Sections 498 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Further, there are no specific allegations that the petitioners demanded dowry or received any dowry after the marriage was solemnized. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of Court.
5. I am unable to accept the above submissions. The complaint and the charge sheet contains specific averments constituting the offences alleged against the petitioners. Specific overt acts are also narrated in the complaint and are also spoken by respondent No.2 in her evidence before the Court. In the said circumstance, it cannot be said that the prosecution launched against the petitioners is false, baseless and abuse of process of the Court as contended. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reasons to quash the proceedings.
As a result, the petition is dismissed.
If for any reasons, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order taking cognizance or the order framing of charge, petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC