IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4940/2014 BETWEEN:
1. SANTHOSH DUNDAPPA VALI S/O. DUNDAPPA VALI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT SHIVAPUR VILLAGE SAVADATHTHI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT-590 001.
2. DUNDAPPA VALI S/O. MAHADEVAPPA VALI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT SHIVAPUR VILLAGE SAVADATHTHI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT-590 001.
3. KAMALAKSHI W/O DUNDAPPA VALI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SHIVAPUR VILLAGE SAVADATHTHI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT-590 001.
4. RAJA SHREE D/O. DUNDAPPA VALI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT SHIVAPUR VILLAGE SAVADATHTHI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT-590 001.
5. SUSHEELA D/O DUNDAPPA VALI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT SHIVAPUR VILLAGE SAVADATHTHI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.) AND:
1. SUREKHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT ASHRAYA COLONY HERANJALU VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY BYNDOOR POLICE STATION UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJAS RAI K., ADV. FOR R1 – ABSENT SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, S.P.P.-II FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.596/14 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.C.J. AND JMFC, AT KUNDAPURA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1, ALLOW THIS CRL.PETN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.2. Counsel for the first respondent is absent.
2. The petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet filed against them in C.C.No.596/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the mother- in-law and petitioners 4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of respondent No.1-complainant.
4. The records reveal that the first respondent had earlier married one Praveen Kumar and the said marriage ended in a divorce in M.C.No.5/2008. Thereafter she married petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 30.7.2012. In the said wedlock, she has begotten a child. According to the complainant, ten months after the marriage she was ill-treated and harassed in the matrimonial home for not bringing dowry. It is alleged that on 22.12.2013, all the accused persons came to her parent’s house at Heranjala and demanded her to pay additional dowry of Rs.1 Lakh. When she declined, all the petitioners threatened the complainant.
5. A reading of the complaint as well as the charge sheet papers disclose that general and omnibus allegations are leveled against all the petitioners. A careful reading of the complaint indicates that the complainant married accused No.1 on 30.7.2012 and left the matrimonial home on 22.2.2013. Petitioners 4 and 5 are residing in Savadatti Taluk. According to the complainant, these petitioners also demanded additional dowry from the complainant. The said allegation, on the face of it, appears to be absurd and unbelievable. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of marriage she had paid any dowry to the petitioners. In the circumstances, the question of demanding additional dowry does not arise at all. Even otherwise, the demand for additional dowry is directed only against accused No.1, which is evident from the statement made by the complainant wherein she has stated that on 31.12.2013, her husband rang up to her and asked her to bring Rs.One lakh demanded by him. This statement clearly suggests that there was no demand from any of petitioners herein except petitioner No.1. In the said circumstances, petitioners 2 to 5 approaching the complainant in her parents house and making a demand for additional dowry does not arise at all. The manner in which the first respondent- complainant has made wide and baseless allegations against the entire members of the family indicates that she is actuated with malice against the entire family of her husband. Nonetheless, the materials produced by the petitioners and the allegations made in the charge sheet do not disclose the involvement of petitioners 2 to 5 in the alleged offences. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the prosecution of petitioners 2 to 5 namely accused Nos.2 to 5 for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law.
6. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed.
The proceedings in C.C.No.596/2014 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, are quashed only insofar as petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned namely Dundappa Vali, Kamalakshi, Raja Shree and Susheela. The proceedings shall continue only against accused No.1-Sri. Santhosh Dundappa Vali.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.