IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7093/2013 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAMITHA TAK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O MUKESH KUMAR R/AT. NO.147-B, DODDABELAVANGALA DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561204 2. SMT. ARCHANA TAK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O LALIT KUMAR TAK R/OF. BAYLA VILLAGE AND POST BEWAR, AJMER RAJASTHAN-305901 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K B K SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ULSOOR GATE WOMEN POLICE STAITON BANGALORE CITY-560001 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAMAMURTHY NAGARA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY-560016 RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 3. MRS. HARSHA TAK W/O MR.VISHAL TAK AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O # 3, 1ST FLOOR NAGABHUSHANA REDDY KRUPA RAVITEJA NILAYA NEAR APNA BAZAR BANGALORE-560013 ALSO AVAILABLE AT C/O T/16 RAILWAY STATION JASALI TALUK DEODHAR BANASKANTHA (B.K) GUJARAT-385330 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 & R2; SRI I.M.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 – ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5631/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional SPP-2 for respondent nos.1 & 2. Counsel for respondent no.3 is absent.
2. Petitioners are accused nos.4 & 5 in the charge sheet laid for the offences alleged under Section 498A & 506 of IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused no.1 married the complainant/respondent no.3 herein on 19.07.2010. After the marriage, she was subjected to ill treatment and cruelty by the petitioners and a demand of `20,00,000/- was made by way of Dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the married sisters of accused no.1. They had left their parental house in the year 2003 itself whereas the marriage between accused no.1 and respondent no.3 was solemnized in 2010. They never stayed with the complainant at any point of time. A reading of the complaint itself discloses that the complainant was residing with accused no.1 and his parents. There are no specific allegations of cruelty or dowry demand against the petitioners and hence the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent nos.1 & 2 however has argued in support of the impugned charge sheet contending that prima facie material is produced in support of the accusations made against the petitioners.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. Even though in the charge sheet it is alleged that all the accused persons demanded a dowry of `20,00,000/- from the complainant, a reading of the complaint lodged by respondent no.3 at the earliest instance discloses that after marriage, respondent no.3 started residing with accused no.1 and accused nos.2 & 3. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the petitioners herein were not members of the family of the complainant. All the allegations in the complaint are directed against accused nos.1 to 3. Only during her further statement complainant appears to have implicated the petitioners on the allegation that they also demanded dowry from the parents of the complainant. The complainant has not alleged any specific instance of cruelty or demand of dowry by the petitioners either in the complaint or in her further statement. The averments made in the complaint do not prima facie constitute the offences under Sections 498A & 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act insofar as the petitioners are concerned. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences cannot be sustained. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of Court and therefore cannot allowed to be continued. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The charge sheet in Cr.No.115/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed only insofar as the petitioners namely accused nos.4 & 5 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.