IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6547/2013 Between:
1. Smt.Lakshmamma, W/o Late Lingaiah, Aged about 66 years, Residing at No.15, II Cross, N.Gupta Layout, B.G.Road, Lakkasandra, Audugodi, Bengaluru – 560 030.
2. Smt.Meenakshi L, W/o Krishne Gowda, Aged about 36 years, 3. Sri.Krishnagowda HL, S/o late Lakkanna Gowda, Aged about 48 years, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residing at, No.9/1, 1st Cross, A.N.Gupta Layout, Lakkasandra, Audugodi, Bengaluru – 560 030. … Petitioners (By Sri.Rajesh Rai, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Audugodi Police Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru.
2. Smt.Pushpa, W/o Satish H.L, No.85, Vajragiri Nilaya, 10th Cross, 20th Main, Bengaluru – 560 068. ...Respondents (By Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP – II for R.1 and Sri.K.Suresh Desai, Advocate for R.2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14959/2013 (Cr.No.221/2012 filed by Adugodi Police Station, Bengaluru City) against the petitioners presently pending before the VI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru and etc., This Criminal Petition 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. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Crime No.221/2012. After investigation, charge sheet is laid against the petitioners and accused No.1 under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law of the complainant, petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No.3 is the husband of accused No.3/petitioner No.2. 2nd respondent set the criminal law in motion against the petitioners and her husband alleging that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 16.03.2006. Four days after her marriage, her father-in-law died and since then, the petitioners started ill-treating, tormenting and accusing her that on account of her entry in the house, her father-in-law died. In the complaint, she has alleged that on 13.08.2012, when she returned from her parental home, accused No.1 pulled her hair and banged her head to the sofa and other accused persons assaulted her with hands. It is further stated that all the accused persons namely accused Nos.1 to 4 were forcing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners, even if accepted to be true, do not make out the ingredients of the offences under Section 498A of IPC. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the permanent residents of Jayanagar. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any point of time, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) were residing with the complainant. On the other hand, according to the complainant herself, she was residing with her husband. All the allegations are directed against her husband namely, accused No.1. Hence, prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and abuse of process of the Court.
5. The learned SPP-II however contends that the allegations made against the petitioners squarely attract the ingredients of the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and therefore, there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
6. On going through the charge sheet papers, I am unable to accept the submission canvassed by the SPP-II in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the complainant and accused No.1 had taken place on 16.03.2006. Even though in the charge sheet, it is stated that at the time of marriage of the complainant, accused Nos.1 to 4 demanded and received cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 250 grams gold by way of dowry, the said allegation is manifestly absent in the complaint lodged by her at the earliest point of time. In the complaint, it was merely stated that at the time of marriage, there was a demand for cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, bracelet and a ring and her father paid the said amount. It is not stated in the complaint that the said amount was paid to the petitioners herein. According to the prosecution, the husband of the accused No.1 demanded to the said amount. Therefore, the said allegation cannot be related to the petitioners.
7. The 2nd allegation made against the petitioners herein is that on 13.08.2012, when the complainant returned home from her parental house, all the accused persons abused her and assaulted her. There is no corroborative evidence to show that the complainant/respondent No.2 has sustained any injury in the alleged incident. As a matter of fact, the prosecution has not invoked the offence under Section 323 of IPC.
8. According to the complainant, at the time of the alleged incident, accused No.1 caught her tuft and banged her head to the sofa. Therefore, even this allegation is directed only against accused No.1 and not against the present petitioners. The further allegation made in the charge sheet that all the accused persons demanded additional dowry of cash of Rs.15,00,000/- is a general and bald allegation which is not supported by any material except the interested statement of the complainant. These allegations, even if it is accepted as true, do not attract the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section 498 of IPC, the alleged cruelty should be of such a nature as is likely to drive the victim to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life of the victim and the harassment caused to the victim should have been directed by the accused with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand.
9. As already stated above, there is no acceptable material or evidence to prove that either any specific demand by any of the petitioners herein for additional dowry or any act of cruelty satisfying the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC or Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The materials produced before the Court indicate that petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 at all times were residing separately at Jayanagar. This is reflected in the voter’s identity card produced along with the petition. It is not the case of the complainant that she was residing with the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at any point of time. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the allegations made by the petitioners, apart from being groundless, are not sufficient to prima facie disclose the commission of the offences by the petitioners. There is no material to support any of the allegations made against the petitioners. As a result, it has to be held that prosecution initiated against the petitioners is wholly illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be continued. Hence, the following;
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.14959/2013 (CR No.221/2012) pending on the file of VI A.C.M.M Court, Bengaluru are hereby quashed only in so far as the *petitioners No.1 to 3 are concerned(accused Nos. 2 to 4).
The trial *Court shall proceed * only against *accused No.1 in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE NBM * Inserted vide Court Order dated 31.01.2019 * Corrected vide Court Order dated 31.01.2019