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.5136/2014 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O KOMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/AT NO.SHIRANGAL VILLAGE, HANDLI POST, SHANIWARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234.
2. KOMARAPPA S/O LATE ESHVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.SHIRANGAL VILLAGE, HANDLI POST, SHANIWARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234.
3. SMT. ROHINI W/O KARUNAKARA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/AT NO.DODDAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANIWARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.V.THIMMAIAH, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF MAHILA POLICE STATION, MYSORE-570 004.
2. SMT. M.B.SARALA, W/O S.K.BHUVANENDRA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.270, TYAGAMARGA SIDDARTHA NAGARA, MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI X.M.JOSEPH, ADV., FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.211/14 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. SR. C.J. AND JMFC., MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 498(A) & 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 & 4 OF D.P. ACT.
ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.211/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 therein. The allegations against the petitioners are that, petitioners herein along with accused No.1 demanded and received dowry from the parents of respondent No.2 and after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and ill- treatment by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except making bald and general allegation against the petitioners, respondent No.2 has not narrated any specific instance of demand for dowry and the allegation of cruelty and ill-treatment so as to attract Section 498(A) of IPC or the provision of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the other hand, the averments made in the complaint prima facie disclose that respondent No.2 was all along lived with her parents. The allegation made against the petitioners are false and baseless and the complainant has roped in all the members of the family of accused No.1 out of spite and malice to wreak vengeance against accused No.1 with whom she has serious matrimonial differences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any argument.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint, charge sheet and the material collected by the Investigating Agency clearly demonstrate the ingredients of offence alleged against the petitioners and therefore, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was performed on 03.03.2010. According to the complainant, after marriage, at the insistence of her husband namely accused No.1, she started residing in her parents house. The various averments made in the complaint go to show that she delivered a baby girl on 11.07.2011 when she was residing in her parents house. These facts go to show that at no point of time respondent No.2 lived with the petitioners herein. Except making bald and general allegations in the complaint as well as in her statement before the police that, after marriage everyday the petitioners were pestering her for additional dowry, the said statement does not fall within the parameters of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.2 or her parents have satisfied or attempted to satisfy the alleged demand of dowry. Even otherwise, it cannot be believed that the petitioners who are residing away from respondent No.2 would make such demand from respondent No.2. These allegations, in my view, cannot be taken as a basis for prosecution of the petitioners under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. In order to constitute an offence under Section 498(A) 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 evidence is not forthcoming in the entire material produced by the Investigating Agency. On the other hand, solely on the basis of the self-interested version of the complainant, the Investigating Agency has filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. The manner, in which, respondent No.2 has made allegations against the petitioners indicate that solely out of spite and to wreck vengeance against accused No.1 with whom she has serious matrimonial differences she has roped in all the family members of accused No.1. The prosecution has failed to collect any material in proof of the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences.
9. Thus, considering all the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are manifestly attended with malafide and malicious motive and therefore, require to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of Court.
10. For these reasons, criminal petition is allowed in part. The proceedings in C.C.No.211/2014 pending on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore, are quashed only insofar as petitioners namely accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned. The trial Court shall proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE PB