IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.180 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
MR. ROSHAN V.MAKAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. SRI VISHWANATHAN R/AT. NO. 82/56 EAST END ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560069 …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION BANGALORE – 560023 REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. SMT. NIRUPAMA ROSHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O. PALAYAM RAMESH R/AT NO.1014/C, 4TH M.BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560010 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6935/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE III A.C.M.M. BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6935/2000 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Certain basic facts which need to be noted are that the marriage between the petitioner and second respondent was performed on 21.12.1994. After the marriage, petitioner herein left to USA on 25.12.1994. On 06.03.1997, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the respondent No.1-police alleging the acts of cruelty and dowry demand by accused. The case was registered against the petitioner as well as his parents namely accused Nos.2 and 3 in Cr.No.93/1997. After investigation, the charge sheet was laid against all the three accused persons. The learned Magistrate having failed to secure the presence of petitioner, the case against the petitioner was split up and only accused Nos. 2 and 3 faced trial. After trial, accused Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted by the trial Court by judgment dated 24.01.2004 in C.C.No.6600/1997.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Ilias Vs. State of Karnataka – 2001 (4) Crimes 417, submits that the co-accused who are facing the same charges having been acquitted by the trial Court, the petitioner herein who is accused of the same offences, on identical set of evidence is also entitled for benefit of the said order. Secondly, he contends that the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet do not make out the ingredients of the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as going by the case of the prosecution, the petitioner all throughout resided in USA, therefore, there was no occasion whatsoever for the petitioner to subject the second respondent to cruelty or ill-treatment as alleged in the charge sheet. Thus, he seeks to quash the proceedings. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Thamilendi Vs. State and Another – 2008(2) Crimes 47 (Mad.).
5. Disputing the submissions, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations made in the complaint as well as the material collected by the investigating agency clearly make out the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner indicates that he has committed an offence under Section 498A of IPC. The petitioner promised to take respondent No.2 to USA, thereafter snapped all relationship with her. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 498A having been made out, there is no ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 has also argued in support of the impugned action and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fact specific and no proposition of law has been laid down on the issues germane in this petition. Section 498A of IPC in ambiguous language renders the accused who causes cruelty to a woman punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The conduct of the accused remaining away from the married women for inordinate long time without even disclosing his whereabouts in my view, in the circumstances of the case, amounts to cruelty as such conduct is likely to drive the women to commit suicide. Therefore, in my view, the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC squarely get attracted to the facts of this case.
9. That apart, the allegations made against the petitioner are sought to be substantiated by the statement of complainant as well as other witnesses examined by the prosecution. Therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the material produced by the investigating agency do not make out a prima facie case for prosecution of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The contention urged by the petitioner that on account of the acquittal of co-accused, the petitioner herein also entitled for acquittal on the ground of parity also cannot be accepted in the facts situation of the present case. A reading of the charge sheet clearly discloses that direct allegations of demand and acceptance of dowry are made against the petitioner. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 appears to have implicated without any basis and on that score, the trial court has acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3. Whatever the evidence that was collected and examined by the trial Court in C.C.No.6600/1997 was relating to accused Nos.2 and 3 and the said evidence cannot be co-related to the present petitioner. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and in view of fact that prima facie material is available in proof of the accusation leveled against the petitioner, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings. As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ