IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5756/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Ravi Basappa, S/o Basappa Ningappa Hunashimard, Aged about 47 years, R/at 132/A, Sai Krupa, 4th Main, CBI Cross Road, Ganganagar, Bangalore – 560 032.
2. Suma, W/o Ravi Basappa Hunashimard, Aged about 47 years, R/at 132/A, Sai Krupa, 4th Main, CBI Cross Road, Ganganagar, Bangalore – 560 032.
(By Sri. L.Govindaraj, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By R.T.Nagar Police Station, Bangalore – 560 024.
…Petitioners Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 005.
2. Uma, W/o Anand B.H., Aged about 30 years, R/at No.20, 13th Cross, “Sri Lalitha”, R.B.I. Colony Road, Ganganagar, Bangalore – 560 024.
...Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri. Ningegowda, Advocate for R2 - Absent) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings arising out of Cr.No.138/2013 pending on the file of VIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore City and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The learned counsel for respondent no.2 is absent. Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.138/2013. The criminal law was set into motion against petitioners and other accused persons by the second respondent by lodging a complaint before R.T.Nagar Police. According to the complainant, she married accused No.1 on 27.03.2008. Thereafter, she was subjected to constant ill-treatment and harassment. It is alleged that at the time of marriage 40 grams gold necklace, 20 grams gold chain, 20 grams gold bangles and 20 grams gold rings were given to her as customary presents. So far as the petitioners herein are concerned, the only allegation made in the complaint and in the charge-sheet is that, at the instance of present petitioners, her husband and mother-in-law were ill-treating her and harassing her for not bringing separate dowry.
2. There are no specific accusation against the petitioners. Reading of the complaint indicate that petitioners herein were residing separately. According to the complainant, at the time of marriage itself, her mother-in-law warned her not to mingle with the second petitioner/accused no.4. Under such circumstances, allegations made against the petitioners herein is appear to be highly improbable and unbelievable. Even otherwise, there are no specific allegations of cruelty and harassment against the petitioners except bald and general allegations that petitioners also joined hands with accused nos.1 and 2. There is no material to substantiate the involvement of petitioners in the alleged act of cruelty.
3. Even otherwise, reading of the charge-sheet does not prima-facie make out the ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. Petitioners appear to have been implicated in the alleged offences only because of animosity and ill will between the complainant and her husband. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution of petitioners for the aforesaid offences in my considered view is malafide, vexatious and an abuse of process of court.
4. For the above reason, the petition is allowed.
The proceedings arising out of Crime No.138/2013 on the file of VIII ACMM Court, Bangalore are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-