IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8109 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. PANDURANGA @ ROHITH S/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAJU S/O LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SMT. SHARADHA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NO. 13, 1ST FLOOR, SWASTHI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, OPP TO RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560027.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: CHANDRASHEKAR P, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ULSOOR GATE, WOMENS POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU 01 2. SMT. ANKITHA SHOBHA D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO. 472, 12TH CROSS, 28TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: M.V. REVANASIDDAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.05.2013 LODGED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 506 OF IPC R/W SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT THE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE CRL.P & TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO. 87/2013 REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE ULSOOR GATE WOMEN P.S., AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A),506 OF IPC R/W SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT IN THE COURT OF ADDL.C.M.M., COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY THE COPY OF WHIHC IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE CRL.P. AND TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO. 12918/2014 IN THE COURT 6th ADDL. C.M.M., COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY FILED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A),506 OF IPC R/W SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT THE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET BEING PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- C TO THE CRL.P.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners (A1 to A3) have sought to quash the charge sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 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 SPP for respondent No.1-State.
3. Perused the records.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 15.4.2011. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in cash and 150 gms of gold ornaments were given to petitioners by way of dowry. Petitioner No.1 took her to Dubai and thereafter she resigned and came back to India. After coming back, she stayed in her matrimonial house where she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by accused Nos.2 and 3. They pestered her for bringing additional dowry from her parents house.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that complaint is ulteriorly motivated. Criminal prosecution was instituted against the petitioners only after accused No.1 filed a petition against respondent No.2 for divorce in M.C.No.1503/2012. In the said proceedings, respondent No.2 did not allege any act of cruelty or dowry demand by the petitioners. On the other hand, her grievance all throughout was that accused No.1 was carrying on extra marital relationship with one Ramya. The allegations in the instant case, therefore, are afterthought and motivated out of spite and vengeance against the petitioners. Charge sheet does not contain any prima facie material disclosing commission of the above offences by the petitioners; thus contending that the charge sheet laid against the petitioners is an abuse of process of court seeks to quash the impugned proceedings in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the State have argued in support of the impugned action contending that prima facie material is available on record in proof of cruelty and dowry demand and hence, there is no reason to quash the impugned proceedings.
7. On perusal of the material on record it is noticed that before lodging the instant complaint, accused No.1 had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is not in dispute that after trial, the said petition was allowed by order dated 30.9.2015 by granting a decree of divorce. The said petition was based on the ground of cruelty and the contentions urged by accused No.1 have been accepted by the Trial Court. It was not the case of respondent No.2 before the Matrimonial Court that the petitioners demanded any dowry from her parents or that she was harassed on that count. No doubt appeal is said to be pending against the order passed by the Matrimonial Court in M.C.No.1503/2012, nevertheless, the above facts clearly indicate that respondent No.2 did not cast any imputations against the petitioners that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in the matrimonial proceedings. It is only in the instant complaint for the first time she has come up with the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty. There is nothing on record to show that prior to the registration of the said complaint, respondent No.2 has filed any complaint regarding the alleged treatment given to her. On the other hand, the circumstance of the case indicate that she was even taken to Dubai by accused No.1. If, in fact, respondent No.2 was subjected to such cruelty and harassment in the matrimonial home, in all probability, accused No.1 could not have taken her to Dubai. The matrimonial differences between the parties appears to have arisen on account of suspicion of respondent No.2 regarding accused No.1 carrying on illicit relationship with one Ramya. Even these allegations are found to be false as even the matrimonial court has granted a decree of divorce against respondent No.2 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. All these circumstances, therefore, suggest that criminal process invoked by respondent No.2 is ulteriorly motivated and calculated to wreak vengeance against her husband-accused No.1 and his family members.
8. The allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are vague and general in nature. Except making omnibus statement that the petitioners demanded and received dowry from the complainant and her parents, no material is produced along with the charge sheet to substantiate the said allegations. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that respondent No.2 has abused the process of Court by setting criminal law in motion only with a view to settle scores with accused No.1 and his relatives. In that view of the matter, the prosecution instituted against the petitioners being an abuse of the process of court, is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.12918/2014 pending in the Court of 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE rs