IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3854/2013 BETWEEN:
SMT. SHAKUNTHALA R. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O LATE INDRA KUMAR R/O NO.105-3, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE, SONEGURUVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI C R RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SMT. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS W/O R PRAKASH R/O NO.11, 5TH C MAIN 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN BHOVI COLONY BASAVESHWAANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 079. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P., FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1283/12 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.320/11 OF BASAVESHWARANAGARA P.S., BENGALURUR, AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.4) THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is accused No.4 in C.C.No.1283/2012 filed for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 married respondent No.2 on 18.04.2001. After the marriage she was residing with accused No.1 in her matrimonial house along with other accused persons. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, a gold neck chain, wrist watch, one finger ring, bracelet and cash of Rs.50,000/- was given to accused No.1, inspite of it, accused No.1 is alleged to have made a demand for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, site and a car and on that ground, ill-treated and harassed respondent No.2 in her matrimonial house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the elder sister of accused No.1. She was given in marriage in the year 1992 and since then, she has been residing separately with her husband and her family at Basaveshwaranagar. The allegations made in the complaint insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are vague and general in nature. The said allegations even if accepted, do not constitute the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Hence, prosecution of the petitioner being illegal and abuse of the process of the Court, is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 – State has argued in support of the impugned charge sheet contending that the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie makes out the ingredients of the above offences and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
5. Respondent no.2 is served and unrepresented.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. The criminal process was set in motion by respondent No.2 by lodging a complaint against four accused persons. A reading of the said complaint indicates that the alleged dowry was made only to accused No.1. There is nothing in the entire complaint to suggest that the petitioner herein either demanded or received any part of dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. According to the complainant, she was residing in matrimonial house along with her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. There is nothing in the entire complaint to indicate that the petitioner herein resided with respondent No.2 at any point of time. Even with regard to the allegations of additional demand, it is directed only against accused No.1. In the complaint it is stated that when respondent No.2 went for delivery to her parents house and when her parents asked accused No.1 to take his wife to the matrimonial home, accused No.1 and others made a demand for additional dowry, a site, car and cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. These allegations are directed against accused Nos. 1 to 3. The election identity card and the ration card produced by the petitioner disclose that the petitioner was residing separately at Basaveshwaranagar. The materials collected by the investigating agency do not constitute any offence against the petitioner. Hence, the prosecution being illegal and abuse of the process of the Court, the same is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1283/2012, pending on the file of the V ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed only insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj