IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1303 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Naresh Kumar Dahat S/o Durga Prasad Dahat, Aged about 33 years, Working at Valero Corporate Headquarters (IS Department), One Valero Way, San Antonio, Texas-78249, United States.
2. Mr. Durga Prasad Dahat S/o Gunsagar, Aged about 70 years, Residing at Service #24400, AEL Department, IAF Headquarters, Bamrauli, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211 012.
3. Smt. Ashabai Dahat W/o Durga Prasad Dahat, Aged about 60 years, Residing at Service #24400, AEL Department, IAF Headquarters, Bamrauli, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211 012.
4. Smt. Jyothi W/o Mallappa Asuti, Aged about 41 years, C/o Mallappa Asuti, Residing at Service #24400, AEL Department, IAF Headquarters, Bamrauli, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211 012.
5. Mr. Mallappa Asuti S/o Late Mr. Y. Asuti, Aged about 45 years, Residing at Service #24400, AEL Department, IAF Headquarters, Bamrauli, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211 012. …Petitioners (By Sri. Mahabaleshwar G.C., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by H.S.R. Layout Police Station, Bangalore.
2. Smt. Deepthi Marimadiah, D/o Mr. N Marimadaiah, Aged about 32 years, Residing at No.160, 2nd Main Road, 8th Cross, Bank Avenue, Babusapalya, Banaswadi, Bangalore-560 043. ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-1; Ms. Ayantika Mondal, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.1964/2016 against the petitioners by the 1st respondent before VI Addl. C.M.M., at Bangalore for the alleged offences under Section 498(A), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 against the charge sheet filed against them in C.C.No.1964/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 20.11.2011. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, accused Nos.1 to 5 demanded and received 100 grams of gold ornaments and silver articles as dowry from the parents of the complainant. Further allegation is that after marriage, accused No.1 took respondent No.2 to Texas and during their stay in Texas she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by accused No.1 at the instance and instigation of accused Nos.2 to 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.1 has obtained a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty inflicted by respondent No.2/complainant before the District Court, 57th Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas. Respondent No.2 participated in the said proceedings and even moved for annulment of marriage and a decree of divorce was passed. The said decree was challenged by respondent No.2 before the Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas and the said appeal was withdrawn and thereby the decree passed against respondent No.2 attained finality. However, respondent No.2 challenged the said decree by filing a suit for declaration before the III Additional Family Court, Bengaluru. In the meanwhile, she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaints in both the proceedings were rejected. Against the said order, respondent No.2 herein filed a writ petition, which also was dismissed on technical grounds granting liberty to respondent No.2 to convert the said writ petition into an appeal.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the above facts indicate that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 for setting aside the decree of the foreign Court is pending consideration of this Court, as such, petitioners’ contention that decree passed by the foreign Court has attained finality, cannot be accepted at this juncture.
6. On going through the charge sheet and material produced by the Investigating Agency, I find that there are clear averments supported by cogent material to show the complicity of accused No.1 in commission of above offences and to that extent, petition filed by accused No.1 for quashment of charge sheet cannot be accepted. However, insofar as the allegations made against accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, on going through the charge sheet, I find that except making general and omnibus statements that at the time of marriage, accused demanded and received dowry of 100 grams of gold and silver articles, the complainant is not specific as to which of the accused demanded and received the alleged dowry. No material is produced along with charge sheet to show that accused Nos.2 to 5 either demanded or received any part of the dowry. On the other hand, the observations made by the District Court at Texas indicate that part of the jewellery was with accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Under the said circumstance, there is no material whatsoever, to substantiate the accusation made against accused Nos.2 to 5 insofar as offences under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned.
7. Likewise, there are no allegations whatsoever, against accused Nos.2 to 5 constituting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498(A), 506 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, all the alleged instances of cruelty had taken place in the matrimonial home at Texas where accused and respondent No.2 were residing. There is no material to show that during their stay in Texas any of accused Nos.2 to 5 were residing with accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Under the said circumstance, there is absolutely no basis for the prosecution of accused Nos.2 to 5 for the alleged offences under Section 498(A), 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In that view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.2 are not applicable to the facts of the case. Though in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Crl.P.No.71/2012), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, yet, in the instant case, the material produced by the prosecution make out a clear case for prosecution of only accused No.1 for the alleged offences, but insofar as accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, they are not liable to be prosecuted for the said offences in view of the principle enunciated in the said decision.
8. Likewise, the observation made in the case of Rashmi Chopra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Crl.A.No.594 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8103/2018) that whenever there is sufficient material to justify the charges, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, cannot resort to quash the proceedings, yet, the prosecution having failed to produce any prima facie material to prove the accusations against accused Nos.2 to 5 for the alleged offences, the prosecution instituted against accused Nos.2 to 5 in the fact situation of the case, are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part.
The petition filed by accused No.1 for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.1964/2016 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is dismissed.
The petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 to 5 is allowed and the charge sheet filed in C.C.N.1964/2016 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed only insofar as the petitioner Nos.2 to 5/accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned.
Any observation made in this order shall not influence the trial Court while conducting the trial in respect of accused No.1.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC