IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7210 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. POORNIMA @ ASHA, W/O. DYAMANNAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT ‘PARVATHI NILAYA’, PWD COLONY, RAMACHANDRA T.C.H.ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN – 571 313.
2. SMT. SUDHA, W/O. R.B. PATIL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT MEDUR VILLAGE, HIRIKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 110.
3. SMT. SUNITHA, W/O. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT POTALAGATTI VILLAGE, HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 002.
4. R.B.PATIL, S/O. BARMANNAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MEDUR VILLAGE, HIRIKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 110.
5. DYAMANNA GOWDA, S/O. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT ‘PARVATHI NILAYA’, PWD COLONY, RAMACHANDRA T.C.H.ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN – 571 313.
6. BASAVARAJ K.M., S/O. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT POTALAGATTI VILLAGE, HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 002.
7. DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK, S/O. GURUSIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT MEDUR VILLAGE, HIRIKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 110. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y.S. SHIVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. M. KOMALA, D/O. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT HONGALLY VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 8) IN CR.NO.105/2012 OF CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1.
The application filed for amendment of the relief is allowed. Amendment carried out.
Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
2. Petitioners are shown as accused Nos.2 to 8 in the charge sheet filed under Sections 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short ‘the Act’). The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant was performed in the presence of relatives of accused No.1. After marriage, accused No.1 and the complainant stayed in the parents’ house of the complainant for about five months. Thereafter, they started residing in a rented house at Nagamangala. It is alleged that after marriage, 75gms of gold, a cash of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused No.1 to purchase a scooter and household articles, yet the complainant was ill-treated and abused by accused No.1 and the petitioners. She was taunted and humiliated on account of her caste. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that on 28.04.2012, accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the complainant, abused and assaulted her and tried to pour kerosene oil on her and to set her on fire.
3. A reading of the complaint as well the allegations made in the charge sheet clearly go to show that material allegations are directed mainly against accused No.1. There are no allegations whatsoever insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned that they either ill-treated or harassed the complainant in the matrimonial house. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that after marriage, the complainant stayed in her parents house for about five months and thereafter she lived with accused No.1 at a different place in a rented house. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners herein lived with the complainant in the same house at any point of time. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint that whenever the petitioners were visiting her house, they were abusing and humiliating her on account of her caste is highly unbelievable and improbable. It is difficult to believe that all the petitioners used to visit the complainant at one time to abuse and taunt her on account of her caste. The complaint as well as the charge sheet is silent as to specific date and time when the petitioners are stated to have visited the complainant and abused her calling out her caste. Even assuming that such an incident had taken place as alleged in the charge sheet, said abuses having been taken place inside the four corners of the house as alleged in the complaint, the same do not constitute an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. There is no material to show that any caste abuses were hurled against the complainant in public view so as to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.
4. Likewise, there is no material in support of the accusations constituting the offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC. Even though two neighbouring witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in support of these charges, their evidence is stereotyped and does not specify the date and place when the alleged incident had taken place, as such, no reliance could be placed on these statements to hold that the petitioners subjected the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A Indian Penal Code. In the absence of such material, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court. Having regard to the circumstances discussed above, petitioners appear to have been roped in solely out of spite and with a view to settle personal scores with accused No.1 with whom, the complainant is seen to have serious matrimonial differences. In that view of the matter, continuation of prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences would be nothing but abuse of process of Court.
In view of the aforesaid, petition is allowed. Proceedings pending against the petitioners in Spl.Case No.1/2013 on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar are hereby quashed only insofar as the petitioners viz., accused Nos.2-8 are concerned. The trial shall proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-