IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4032 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.1937 OF 2015 IN CRL.P.NO.4032/2015 BETWEEN:
1. Keshava Suvarna, Aged about 42 years, S/o Narayana Suvarna, Residing at Yamuna Nivas, Sea Side, Thenka Yermal Village, Thenka Yermal – 574 115. Udupi Taluk and District.
2. Chandrika, Aged about 39 years, W/o Keshava Suvarna, Residing at Yamuna Nivas, Sea Side, Thenka Yermal Village, Thenka Yermal – 574 115. Udupi Taluk and District.
(By Sri S.K.Acharya, Advocate) …Petitioners AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Padubidri Police Station, Padubidri, Udupi District. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Pramila, Aged 35 years, W/o Sudesh Puthran, D/o Sadananda Salian, Residing at “Gudde House”, Kadipatna, Nadsal Village, Padubidri – 576 117, Udupi District.
...Respondents (By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. S.P.P., for R1; Sri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate for R2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.39/2015 on the file of the II Addl. Civil and JMFC, Udupi in so far as the petitioners (Accused No.5 and 3) are concerned.
IN CRL.P.NO.1937/2015 BETWEEN:
1. Pavithra P Shettigar, Aged 44 years, W/o Purandara Shettigar, “Yamuna Nivas”, Sea Side, Thenka Yermal Village, Udupi Taluk and District.
2. Ananda S Puthran, Aged 78 years, S/o Somayya S Puthran, “Yamuna Nivas”, Sea Side, Thenka Yermal Village, Udupi Taluk and District.
(By Sri S.K.Acharya, Advocate) …Petitioners AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Padubidri Police Station, Padubidri, Udupi District. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Pramila, Aged 35 years, W/o Sudesh Puthran, D/o Sadananda Salian, Residing at “Gudde House”, Kadipatna, Nadsal Village, Padubidri, Udupi District.
...Respondents (By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. S.P.P., for R1; Sri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate for R2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.39/2015 on the file of the II Addl. C.J., and JMFC, Udupi in so far as the petitioners (Accused No.2 and 4) are concerned.
These Criminal petitions coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Charge sheet is laid against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are shown as accused Nos. 2 to 5 therein.
3. The case of the prosecution is that; respondent No.2 started residing with her husband in Mumbai. It is alleged that the petitioners herein being the in-laws and the sister of accused No.1 and her husband were ill- treating and harassing the complainant / victim and instigated accused No.1 to demand a dowry of `2,00,000/- from the complainant and her parents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations made in the charge sheet are directed only against accused No.1. At all point of time, the complainant was residing with accused No.1 in Mumbai. She did not reside with the petitioners at any point of time and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners herein to subject the complainant for ill-treatment and harassment. Even with regard to the allegations of alleged dowry demand, the allegations are bald and general in nature. The complainant did not cite any specific allegation of demand for dowry by the petitioners. The petitioners are roped in solely on account of the animosity of the complainant with her husband. The prosecution of the petitioners therefore is illegal and abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 has countered the arguments contending that the allegations made in the complaint, as well as in the charge sheet clearly make out the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are specific allegations that the petitioners herein also joined hands with accused No.1 and instigated accused No.1 to demand dowry and on account of her failure to satisfy the said demand, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in the matrimonial home and therefore there is no reason to quash the impugned order.
6. Undeniably the marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 03.05.2006 at Uchila. According to respondent No.2, after the marriage she started residing with her husband in Mumbai. Reading of the complaint indicate that her matrimonial home was in Mumbai. All the allegations made in the complaint are directed only against accused No.1 while she was residing with him at Mumbai. According to her, she returned to her parents house only in April, 2013. The complaint is lodged on 07.07.2014. In the said complaint, she did not refer to any specific instance of cruelty or ill-treatment by any one of the petitioners. On the other hand bald and general allegations are made to the effect that all the petitioners herein instigated accused No.1 to demand for dowry. Even with regard to the said allegations, there is no mention of the specific date and time when the alleged demand was made.
7. Going by the version of the complainant, after return to Ermal, she was residing in her parents house. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the petitioners herein came to her parents house and made the alleged demand. Even though in her further statement, the complainant has tried to improve her version by stating that the petitioners herein were also instrumental in causing cruelty to her, even in the said statement, she has not cited any specific instance of cruelty by the petitioners.
8. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under this provision should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution, but when the allegations made in the First Information Report and evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. It is a settled proposition that the wholesome power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding only when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
9. In the case on hand, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of Court. As a result, petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.39/2015 on the file of the II Additional C.J., and JMFC, Udupi are quashed only insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are concerned and the proceedings against accused No.1 shall be proceeded with.
Sd/- JUDGE GH