IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.674 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. N. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE BASAVARAJ R/O NO.51, 4TH CROSS SUBHASH NAGAR VIRGONAGAR BANGALORE 560049 2. SMT. ARUNA @ LATHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O B.M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA R/O NO.17 DHOBIRAJ MUDALIAR STREET SHIVACHETTY GARDEN BANGALORE 560042 3. KUM. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE BASAVARAJ R/O NO.51, 4TH CROSS SUBHASH NAGAR VIRGONAGAR BANGALORE 560049 4. SMT. NALINA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS W/O GANESH GOUTHAM R/O NO.6, 1ST MAIN GOKULAM MYSORE 570002 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: H SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN P.S., SHIMOGA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560001 2. SMT. S. MAMATHA W/O B. GIRISH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O PURALE VILLAGE HOLEBENAVALLI POST SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT 577201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.3219/2009 (OLD NO.175/2006) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M., SHIMOGA, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 State. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
2. Proceedings are initiated against the petitioners based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent. The second respondent married accused No.1 on 9.12.2004. As per the complaint, she lived in the matrimonial house along with the petitioners till 31.08.2005 and during this period, she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty by the petitioners. In the complaint, she has made specific allegation that at the time of marriage, a cash of Rs.3.00 lakhs, 15 tholas of gold, cash of Rs.10,000/- and other silver articles and clothes were given to accused No.1 by way of dowry, but after marriage, all the accused persons were demanding additional dowry from the complainant and were subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for not satisfying the said demand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the petitioners herein are accused of the above offences without there being any material to support the accusations. Respondent No.2 was in the matrimonial home hardly for one and half years. The allegations made against the petitioners are bald in nature. The very fact that the complainant has failed to cite any specific incident of cruelty indicates that solely on account of her strained relationship with her estranged husband, the petitioners have been roped in, in the alleged offences which is a sheer abuse of process of the Court and hence prays to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1- State however has sought to justify the charge sheet and would submit that having regard to the prima-facie material collected by the investigating agency, the contention of the petitioners that the allegations made against them are false and baseless cannot be accepted and hence he seeks to reject the petition.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. Insofar as the accusations under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the material on record clearly indicate that the father of the complainant has unequivocally stated in his statement that at the time of marriage, a cash of Rs.3.00 lakhs, 15 tholas of gold, Rs.10,000/- of cash and silver articles were demanded and given to accused No.1. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioners herein at any point of time either demanded additional dowry from the complainant or from her father. Therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the face of it cannot be sustained.
6. Insofar as the offences alleged under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, a bare perusal of the complaint and the statement of father of the complainant indicate that on 31.08.2005, the complainant returned to her parents house alleging cruelty and harassment in the matrimonial home. The father of the complainant has unequivocally stated in his statement that when he enquired about the reason for her returning to the parental house, she told him that she was threatened and was sent away from the matrimonial home in order to bring additional dowry. But in the charge sheet, it is alleged that since she was lazy and not attending to the household work, she was abused and harassed. This allegation, even if true, does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. In order to constitute the offence under 498A of IPC, cruelty against the married women by her husband or his relatives should be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Such material is not deciphered in the charge sheet. On the other hand, the circumstances narrated in the charge sheet suggest that the petitioners herein are implicated in the alleged offences solely on account of their relationship with accused No.1 and out of spite to settle scores with the husband with whom she is having serious matrimonial differences.
7. On consideration of the overall material collected by the investigating agency, I am of the view that the accusations made against the present petitioners do not prima-facie attract the ingredients of the offences either under Sections 498A and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code or under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences being an abuse of process of the Court, in order to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3219/2009 on the file of JMFC-II, Shimoga, for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed only insofar as petitioners are concerned. Proceedings shall continue only against accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-