IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1239 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. RAVIKUMAR C @ HEMANTH KUMAR S/O CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O #122, 1ST ‘A’ CROSS PREETI NAGARA, LAGGERE BANGALORE-560058 2. CHELUVAIAH S/O LATE CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O #122, 1ST ‘A’ CROSS PREETI NAGARA, LAGGERE BANGALORE-560058 3. LAKSHMAMMA W/O CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O #122, 1ST ‘A’ CROSS PREETI NAGARA, LAGGERE BANGALORE-560058 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HALSOOR GATE WOMENS POLICE STATION BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001 2. SMT NANDHINI C R @ MAMATHA W/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O #27, GROUND FLOOR 10TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAHALLI WEST OF CHORD ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI: A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN C.C.NO.30371/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings registered against them in C.C.No.30371/2015 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law of respondent No.2. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 23.4.2014. On 5.1.2015, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 Police alleging that ever since the date of marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in the matrimonial home demanding additional dowry. In the complaint, she has alleged that on 3.09.2014, when she was pregnant, petitioners asked her to bring Rs.60,000/- and ornaments from her parents house and when her parents declined, petitioner No.2 threatened to kill the complainant and at his instance, petitioner No.1 took her on his motorcycle and left her in her parents house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague and general in nature. Except making omnibus allegations against all the petitioners, second respondent/complainant has not alleged any specific instance of alleged cruelty with reference to date and place which clearly indicates that the complaint lodged against the petitioners is false and baseless and the prosecution of the petitioners is ulteriorly motivated. Further he submitted that even the witnesses examined by the Investigating Agency have given stereotyped statements indicating that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is false and frivolous and hence seeks to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant submitted that the complainant has narrated each and every detail of cruelty meted out to her in the matrimonial house. She has made specific allegation of demand for dowry and has also stated about the efforts made by her parents to satisfy the demands. She has narrated the manner in which she was sent out of the matrimonial house. In the said circumstances, there is prima facie material to take action against the petitioners and thus, prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. On going through the complaint lodged by the second respondent and on perusal of the statements made by the witnesses, it is noticed that the material allegations are directed against accused Nos.1 and 2. There are specific allegations in the complaint as well as in the statements of the witnesses that after the marriage, complainant/respondent No.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in the matrimonial house. Though it is stated that accused No.3 namely mother-in-law also used to abuse and assault her, these allegations appear to be general in nature. Insofar as involvement of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there are specific allegations to the effect that accused Nos.1 and 2 made demand for additional dowry and when she declined, petitioner No.2/accused No.2 threatened to kill her and at his instance, petitioner No.1/accused No.1 left her in her parents house. These allegations, in my view, coupled with the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie make out offences against petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2. To that extent, prayer made by the petitioner No.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings initiated against them cannot be allowed. Whereas the allegations made against petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is concerned, these allegations do not prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences under sections 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Hence, the following order:-
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) Petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed.
(iii) Petition filed by petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.30371/2015 pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed only insofar as petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is concerned.
(iv) Trial shall proceed against petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and it is also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss