IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9061 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SANTOSH B K S/O Mr. KUMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. SMT DAKSHAYINI W/O LATE KUMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCCUPATION:HOMEMAKER, 3. SMT RASHMI W/O SRI DURGESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4. MR JAGADISH S/O LATE KUMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5. MR DURGESH PRASAD S/O LATE KUMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4025/A, PANCHAVATI NILAYA, 2ND MAIN, "B" BLOCK, NEAR ATHMEEYA DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC SUBRAMANYANAGAR RAJAJIANGAR, BENGALURU-560021.
6. SMT TANUJA W/O SRI MAHESH, OCCUPATION:HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT NO.132, ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD, CHIKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560090.
7. MR MAHESH S/O LATE ESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCCUPATION:BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO.132, ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD, CHIKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560090.
(BY SRI: P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION, TILAK PARK CIRCLE, TUMKURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLURU-560001.
2. DR ASHA P W/O MR SANTOSH B.K., ... PETITIONERS D/O N PUTTASHANKARAPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCCUPATION:DENTIST, RESIDENT OF MANJUNTHA NILAYA, 6TH HOUSE, 13TH CROSS, SIT EXTENSION, TUMKUR TOWN-572102.
NOW RESIDING AT NO.369, 1ST "D" CROSS, 10TH MAIN ROD, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKURU IN C.C.NO.21/2015 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 504, 506, 498A R/W 149 OF IPC AND ORDERING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE AND ISSUE SUMMONS, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THEREON.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 504, 506, 324, 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the mother, petitioner No.3 is the sister, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are brothers, petitioner No.6 is the sister and petitioner No.7 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1.
4. The case of the prosecution is that marriage of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was performed on 27.02.2012. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, 18 gm of gold bracelet, 6gm of gold finger ring, 18 gm of gold neck chain, 50gm of gold chain, 50g of gold bangles and 1kg of silver articles were given as dowry on 27.02.2012. Accused No.1 assaulted respondent No.2 on 11.09.2014 when she had been to the house of accused No.1 and all the accused persons abused her in vulgar language and threatened to set her on fire if she failed to bring further dowry.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners’ submits that the complaint was lodged by the second respondent as a sequel to the petition filed by accused No.1 seeking divorce under section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. The allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are bald and general in nature. The material collected by the investigating agency does not specify as to which of the accused demanded or accepted any part of dowry from respondent No.2. There is no material to show that the alleged dowry amount was received by any one of the petitioners. On the other hand, material on record indicate that all throughout the second respondent was residing in her parents’ house and under the said circumstances, there was no occasion for petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 to subject the second respondent to cruelty or harassment as alleged in the FIR. Furthermore, petitioners have been residing at different places and under the said circumstances, the allegations made against the petitioners are palpably false and are engineered to foist false case against the petitioners out of spite and vengeance.
6. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1-State argued in support of the impugned action contending that the material on record prima-facie disclose commission of the above offences and hence there is no reason to quash the proceedings pending trial.
7. On considering the submissions made at the Bar and on going through the material on record, I find that except making bald and general allegations in the complaint as well as in her further statement, no material is produced on record to show any specific instance of the alleged demand or receipt of alleged dowry. A reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein at the most go to show that the alleged demand was made by accused No.1 and same was received by accused No.1. The allegations of assault are also directed only against accused No.1.
8. Insofar as accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, the allegations made in the charge sheet are that on 11.09.2014, when the complainant went to the house of accused No.1, all the accused herein abused the complainant and threatened to set her on fire, if she failed to satisfy their demand for additional dowry. But the records produced before the Court indicate that much before the alleged incident, matrimonial petition was filed by accused No.1 seeking divorce under section 13(1) (ia) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act. Except the self-serving statement of accused No.2, there is nothing on record to show that the alleged incident had taken place as stated in the charge sheet. The material on record disclose that accused Nos.2 to 7 were residing at different places and therefore, it is highly improbable and unbelievable that all the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 reached the house of second respondent only to abuse and threaten her. The manner in which these allegations are made in the charge sheet indicate that these accusations are made solely with a view to bolster the charges foisted against the petitioners. But as the prosecution has failed to collect any evidence in support of these accusations, in my view, the prosecution of petitioner Nos.2 – 7 on the basis of the above allegations is nothing but malafide and vengeful. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the prosecution of accused Nos.2 to 7 is baseless, malicious, vexatious and ulteriorly motivated and cannot be sustained. However, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, prima-facie material is available in support of the accusations made in the charge sheet and hence the petition filed by accused No.1 is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in -part.
a. Petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is dismissed. Trial shall proceed against accused No.1 for the above offences in accordance with law.
b. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 to 7/accused Nos.2 to 7 is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.21/2015 pending on the file of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur is quashed only insofar as petitioner Nos.2 – 7 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-