IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6861/2017 BETWEEN:
Rajesh R, S/o Late Ramappa P Aged about 43 years, Occupation: Junior Assistant (SDA) Kuvempu University, Gyna Sahydari, Shankaraghatta, Shimogga-577 451.
(By Sri.R.B.Deshpande, Advocate) AND:
... Petitioner 1. The State of Karnataka by Shikaripura Police Station, Shivamogga District-577 427.
(Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001).
2. Smt. Nirmala, W/o Rajesh, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Head Police Constable, No.202, Honnali Police Station-577 217.
Permanent Address, Kabbala Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District-577 213 ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl SPP for R1; R2 served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.323/2017 (old Number C.C.No.980/2008) pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., Shikaripura and its consequential proceedings.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner married respondent No.2 on 04.11.2004. On 14.06.2008, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner and her relatives in crime No.116/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. According to respondent No.2, after marriage, petitioner was subjecting her to cruelty and ill-treatment. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque and a cash of Rs.25,000/- as dowry. He also demanded further dowry from respondent No.2 for the marriage of his sister and thus committed the above offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the allegations made in the complaint are patently false and baseless. Apparently on account of said baseless allegations, this Court, in Criminal Petition No.594/2011 was pleased to quash the charge sheet filed against accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. In the said order, this Court has held that criminal law was set in motion by respondent No.2, only an after thought and counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner herein. It was also noticed by this Court that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which indicated that the prosecution launched against the petitioner was ulteriorly motivated. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the observations made by this Court in the above petition squarely apply to the present petitioner inasmuch as the allegations made against the petitioner are at par with accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to quash the proceedings.
3. Learned Additional SPP points out that clear allegations are made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet alleging that the petitioner herein demanded and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.25,000/- in cash as dowry and therefore, there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner herein and thus seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. There is no dispute with regard to the factum of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 which was held on 04.11.2004. The petitioner was working as Head Constable of Honnali Police Station at the relevant time. Though in the complaint it is stated that at the time of marriage a demand draft was drawn which was later taken back by the complainant and cheque was issued for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry, but the charge sheet does not contain any material in this regard. No doubt, in the complaint it is stated that the said cheque was encashed at the counter and the money was received by the petitioner, yet even in this regard, necessary evidence is not collected by the Investigating Agency to support the said accusation. In the absence of any such material, the allegation made in the complaint has remained only a baseless allegation. Apparently for this reason, observations have been made by this Court in Criminal Petition No.594/2011 that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 was malafide and ulteriourly motivated as a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner herein. The allegations made against the petitioner and the material collected by the Investigating Agency do not fortify the allegations made against the petitioner. Barring the allegations of dowry demand neither the complaint nor the charge sheet contain any specific instance of cruelty so as to make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Thus on consideration of entire material on record, I hold that the instant proceedings deserve to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.323/2017 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Shikaripura, are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE UN