IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1087/2013 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8086/2014 IN CRL.P.NO.1087/2013 BETWEEN:
1. SESETTI RAJAGOPALA RAO, S/O.SRI.VENKATARAMANA SESETTI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NOW AT 11000 N E 10TH STREET, APARTMENT NO.250, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004, U.S.
(NOW AT BANGALORE).
2. SRI. VENKATARAMANA SESETTI, S/O LATE SRI.SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SMT. NAGALAXMI, W/O SRI. VENKATARAMANA SESETTI, 4. SMT. LAXMI TULASI, W/O VENKATARAMANA TUMMA, D/O SRI.VENKATARAMANA SESETTI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1 TO 4 ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT AT D.NO.70-2A-4/5, CHAKO GARDEN, RAMANAYYA PETA, KAKINADA – 533 005.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. SHARASS CHANDRA, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560 078.
2. NAMITA KUMAR SHETTIGAR, D/O.SRI.S.N.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, ROYAL RESIDENCY LAKE FRONT, PHASE-III ANJANAPURA, BANGALORE.
3. VENKATARAMANA, C/O VENKATARAMANA SESETTI, MAJOR, RESIDENT D.NO.70-2A-4/5, CHAKO GARDEN, RAMANAYYA PETA, KAKINADA – 533 005.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.87-4-6/4, REHMAT NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, A.P. – 533 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUAMR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI.K.G.SHANTHARAJA, ADV., FOR R3) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.21445/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
IN CRL.P.NO.8086/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATARAMANA, S/O NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O VENKATARAMANA SESETTI, RESIDENT D.NO.70-2A-4/5, CHAKO GARDEN, RAMANAYYA PETA, KAKINADA – 533 005.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.87-4-6/4, REHMAT NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, A.P. – 533 101. SENIOR OPERATOR AT A OIL REFINING COMPANY (TAKEREER), PRESENT R/O H.NO.Z1913 RYWAIS HOUSING COMPLEX, RYWAIS WEST ZONE, ABUDHABI, U.A.E.
(BY SRI. K.G.SHANTHARAJA, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
2. SMT. NAMITA KUMAR SHETTIGAR, D/O.SRI.S.N.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENT RESIDING AT NO.38, ROYAL RESIDENCY LAKE FRONT, PHASE-III ANJANAPURA, BANGALORE.
…PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUAMR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2016 PETITION STANDS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.21445/2012 ON THE FILE OF II A.C.M.M. COURT, BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP-II for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for Respondent No.3.
2. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
Perused the records.
3. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in CC.No.21445/2012 registered for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The undisputed facts are that respondent No.2, married accused No.1 on 18.8.2006. According to the prosecution after marriage, she stayed with accused No.1 only for five days.
Thereafter accused No.1 left to USA. The allegations in the charge-sheet are that while leaving to USA, accused No.1 did not even inform her and did not furnish or disclose his whereabouts and address. Even after returning from Chicago, he ill treated the complainant in the matrimonial house and abused and threatened her.
5. Insofar as accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, general allegations are made in the charge-sheet that at the instance of accused Nos. 2 to 5, accused No.1 subjected the complainant to ill treatment and harassment and made a demand for additional dowry.
6. Reading of the charge-sheet makes out a prima facie case for proceeding against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But, insofar as accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, allegations made against them are general in nature. The averments made in the complaint and the material produced along with charge-sheet disclose that the complainant resided in the matrimonial house hardly for about 5-6 days. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter accused No.1 left USA leaving the complainant in India. It is not the case of the complainant/prosecution that after accused No.1 left to USA, she resided with accused Nos.2 to 5 at any point of time. There are no such allegations. Under the said circumstances the allegations made in the charge-sheet that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were instrumental in causing cruelty and harassment to the petitioner appears to be highly improbable. Even with regard to the allegations attracting the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was demanded by the accused. But the records produced before the court indicate that accused No.1 himself had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty by respondent No.2. The order copy produced by the petitioners disclose that the said petition was allowed by order dated 27.08.2010 in O.P.No.157/2008 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Though, there is no specific finding in the said order that respondent No.2 committed acts of cruelty on accused No.1, nonetheless the fact remains that respondent No.2 herself conceded the allegations made against her in the petition and conceded for divorce. There is nothing on record to indicate that respondent No.2 has sought for any permanent alimony or return of alleged gold ornaments said to have been given by her. In the absence of any material even in the earlier proceedings, it could be inferred that the allegations made against the petitioners in the charge-sheet are wholly baseless and are made only with a view to frame the petitioner in false charges.
7. The allegations made against accused Nos.2 to 4 are bereft of details and are not supported by any cogent material. Under the said circumstances, continuance of proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 5 on the basis of the allegations made in the charge sheet, is nothing but an abuse of process of court. As a result the proceedings pending against accused Nos.2 to 4 deserve to be quashed.
8. Accordingly Crl.P.No.1087/2013 is allowed-in-part.
The petition filed by accused No.1-Sri Sesettii Rajagopal Rao is dismissed.
9. Petition filed by accused No.2, 3 and 4 is allowed.
Consequently, proceedings initiated against accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C.No.21445/2012 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
10. For the same reasons, Crl.P.No.8086/2014 filed by accused No.5 is allowed. The proceedings pending against accused No.5 in C.C.No.21455/2012 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
Trial shall proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE psg