IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2747/2012 BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA K C AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O CHANNAVEERAIAH NO.475, PARSONAGE ROAD EDISON, NEW JERSY, USA 2. GEETHA W/O CHANNAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O HOLALKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 3. CHANNAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH R/O HOLALKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULSOOR GATE WOMEN POLICE STATION, BANGALORE 2. SMT.REKHA H S AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS W/O MANJUNATHA K C R/O NO.109, LEWIS MANOR 16TH CROSS, NARAYANAPPA GARDE RMV 2ND STAGE, AECS LAYOUT SANJAY NAGAR BANGALORE-94 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI H.MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ACMM IN C.C.NO.11130/12.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet filed against them for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A & 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent no.1.
3. It is stated that petitioner no.1/accused no.1 married respondent no.2 on 09.06.2010. Further, respondent no.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 12.09.2011 making allegations of dowry demand and cruelty in the matrimonial home. After investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners for the above offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the documents produced by the prosecution do not disclose the ingredients of the above offences by the petitioners, except making bald and general allegations of dowry demand, charge sheet does not disclose that any of the petitioners made any specific demand for dowry. He submits that there is no evidence to show that any part of dowry has been paid either by respondent no.2 or by her parents to the petitioners. Under the said circumstances, the charge under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act is false and baseless. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, according to the prosecution, all the instances narrated had taken place in America where respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1 were residing together and it indicates that petitioner nos.2 & 3 have been implicated solely out of spite without there being any evidence. Thus, he seeks to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent no.1 contended that the material collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie make out the ingredients of the above offences, and therefore, there is no reason to quash the impugned proceedings.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. A reading of the charge sheet and the averments made in the complaint indicate that the marriage between accused no.1 and respondent no.2 was performed on 09.06.2010. According to respondent no.2, after the marriage she resided in the matrimonial home with the petitioners for a period of two months. Thereafter, she lived with accused no.1 in United States of America. According to respondent no.2, she was subjected to cruelty and ill treatment by accused no.1 in America. There is nothing on record to show that during this period petitioner nos.2 & 3 lived with respondent no.2 or subjected respondent no.2 to cruelty so as to lead to their prosecution for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. There is absolutely no material in the entire charge sheet pointing out that petitioner nos.2 & 3 subjected respondent no.2 to cruelty. As a result, the charge under Section 498A of IPC, in my opinion, cannot be sustained against petitioner nos.2 & 3.
8. Even with regard to the allegations of dowry demand is concerned, a careful reading of the complaint suggests that averments are made therein to the effect that at the time of marriage, dowry such as gold and cash was demanded from the parents of respondent no.2 and during this negotiation, the parents of respondent no.2 agreed to give a site and gold to accused no.1. It is not the case of respondent no.2 that petitioner nos.2 & 3 demanded any part of dowry or that any part of dowry was paid to them. In this regard, except making general and baseless allegation that after accused no.1 and respondent no.2 returned from United States of America, petitioner nos.2 & 3 came to the house of parents of respondent no.2 and demanded `20,00,000/-, there is nothing on record to corroborate this statement. Having regard to the circumstances narrated in the complaint, when the relationship between accused no.1 and respondent no.2 were strained to such an extent, it is highly improbable and unbelievable that petitioner nos.2 & 3 would come to the house of the parents of respondent no.2 only to demand dowry as contended by the prosecution. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the material produced before the Court reveals that respondent no.2 herself had approached the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking dissolution of the marriage on account of her relationship with accused no.1. Under the said circumstances, the implication of petitioner nos.2 and 3 for the alleged offences appears to be totally unjustified and motivated to spite and harass the entire family members of accused no.1. Except the self serving statement of respondent no.2, there is no material to substantiate the charges made against petitioner nos.2 & 3. As already discussed above, the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet even if accepted on their face value as true, do not constitute the ingredients of the offences insofar as petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned. As a result, the petition deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The charge sheet laid insofar as petitioner nos.2 & 3/accused nos.2 & 3 is hereby quashed. The trial shall proceed against accused no.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.