IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6792/2015 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NANI @ TRIVENI W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE 2. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF: GOPASANDRA VILLAGE THALI POST, DENKANI KOTTAI TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-635118 3. SRINIVAS S/O KRISHNAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: SERVICE R/AT NO.513, 5TH BLOCK, KHB COLONY, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560034.
4. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O MANJUNATHA AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/AT NO.68-B, KOLADASAPURAM BERIKAI POST KRISHANGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-635105. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI K.V.THIMMAIAH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF HULIMAVU POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. YELLAPPA S/O LATE MADURAPPA AGE: 62 YEARS NO.43/2, 4TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA BENGALURU-560039. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1, SRI SHIVASHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 – ABSENT.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.8555/2015 ON THE FILE OF V A.C.M.M., BENGALURU (CR.NO.766/2014 ON THE FILE OF HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETRS. ARE CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETRS. FOR THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST THEM.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioners are accused nos. 3 to 6 in CC No.8555/2015 on the file of V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The proceeding against the petitioners and other accused was instituted by the father of one Ashwini. He lodged a complaint on 27.10.2014 after the death of his daughter alleging that his daughter Ashwini was given in marriage to accused no.1 on 21.5.2009. At the time of marriage, Rs. 5,00,000/- cash and certain jewels were given to accused no.1 as dowry. Inspite of payment of dowry, the deceased was ill-treated and harassed in her matrimonial home demanding additional dowry. It is alleged by him that all the accused persons including the petitioners herein were subjecting the deceased to harassment and ill-treatment in the matrimonial home and being unable to bear the ill-treatment and harassment meted out by the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 27.10.2014 by hanging in the matrimonial home.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, none of the petitioners herein were residing with the deceased and accused no.1 at any point of time. There are no specific accusations against the petitioners attracting any of the offences alleged in the charge sheet. The petitioners herein are implicated solely on the ground of their relationship with accused no.1. Referring to the further statement of the complainant, he submits that the real cause for the deceased to commit suicide was the illicit relationship developed by accused no.1 with one Divya. The allegations of dowry demand are afterthought and are concocted only to rope in the relatives of accused no.1 so as to pressurize accused no.1 to agree to the unlawful demands of the complainant and thus he seeks for quashing of the proceedings.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents has opposed the submission. He contends that investigation is completed and prima facie material is collected by the investigating agency in support of accusations leveled against the petitioners. In view of the said material, the proper course for the petitioners is to seek for their discharge rather than seeking for quashing of the proceedings and hence prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP and perused the records.
6. There is nothing on record to show that prior to death of deceased, there was any complaint either by the deceased or by her parents alleging any ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased. There is also nothing in the FIR to suggest that any mediation was convened at the instance of the complainant or the deceased on account of alleged demand for additional dowry. On the other hand, the further statement of the complainant indicate that the demand for additional dowry was made only by accused no.1 not by the petitioners. According to the complainant the said amount was paid by him to accused no.1. in the presence of his wife, her sister Manjula, Pushparaj and elder sister Triveni and also her husband Krishnappa. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioners either demanded or received any part of dowry either from the complainant or from the deceased. Under the above circumstances, there is no material to substantiate the charges leveled against the petitioners for the offences under IPC as well as under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. In so far as the offence under Section 304B of IPC is concerned, a reading of the further statement of the complainant indicates that the immediate provocation for the deceased to commit suicide was the alleged illicit intimacy said to have been developed by accused no.1 with one Divya. In this regard, the complainant has stated that deceased herself had complained to him that when she objected to the said illicit relationship, there used to be quarrel between the deceased and accused no.1. This appears to be the immediate provocation for the deceased to commit suicide and not the alleged demand of additional dowry as sought to be made out in the charge sheet. Thus, on the consideration of entire material on record, I am of the clear opinion that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the documents produced in support there of, even if accepted as a whole, would not make out the offence either under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act or under Section 498A and 304B of IPC.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings pending on the file of V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.8555/15 are hereby quashed only in so far as the petitioners namely Smt.Nani @Triveni-Accused no.3, Sri Krishnappa- Accused no.4, Sri Srinivas-Accused no.5, Smt.Vijayalaxmi-accused no.6, are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR