IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9390 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. SMT SHEERISHA W/O SRI H MADHU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.402 SRI MUKUNDAM APARTMENT GOPAL REDDY LAYOUT DODDABANASWADA BENGALURU – 560 043.
2. SMT. U.G.SWETHA D/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.160 8-41/20/12/2 HEMANAGAR, MC DOWELL COLONY BODUPPAL, RANGAREDDY HYDERABAD – 500 039 TELANGANA STATE. … PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. SANTOSH.S.GOGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP. BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SMT. SOUMYA M W/O RAVINDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A NO.1035, A-BLOCK 24TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS SAHAKARANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 092. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI R NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 9.8.2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CR. NO. 174/2018 AND FIR IN CR. NO. 174/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT REGISTERED BY 1ST RESPONDENT KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This petition is presented by accused Nos.4 and 5 challenging FIR No.174/2018 registered by respondent No.2- complainant in Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru, on 09.08.2018.
2. Shri Santhosh.S.Gogi, learned Advocate for petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 was married with one Ravindra Kumar on 15.08.2014. Petitioners are sisters-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner No.1 was married and staying in her matrimonial home at Bengaluru much prior to the date of marriage of the complainant. The allegations against petitioners in the complaint are omnibus in nature and no specific overt-act on the part of petitioners is stated in the complaint. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
3. Shri R.Nagendra Naik, learned advocate for complainant, adverting to paragraphs No.16 and 20 of the complaint, argued that names of petitioners has been mentioned in the complaint and it is stated that they were also demanding for jewellery and dowry.
4. Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP argued in support of the FIR.
5. Both learned advocates for the respondents submitted that the investigation is in progress and therefore, quashing the complaint at this stage is not appropriate.
6. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
7. According to learned advocate for respondent No.2, allegations against petitioners are stated in paragraphs No.16 and 20 of the complaint.
8. In paragraph No.16, names of petitioners are not forthcoming. It is stated in general, that parents-in-law and sisters-in-law were troubling the complainant. In paragraph No.20, petitioners’ name is found and it is stated that parents-in-law and petitioners were demanding for dowry and jewellery. The allegations are common to all four members of the family. The specific overt-act against the petitioners is not forthcoming even in paragraph No.20. It is also stated that they were asking the complainant to do the domestic work and it had caused mental agony. On the basis of this complaint, FIR has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 34 & 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
9. Section 498A of IPC reads as follows;
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation : For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
10. The cruelty for the purpose of the said section has been clearly described. A plain reading of the penal provision show that alleged cruelty must drive the women to commit suicide or cause danger to life, limb or health. It is submitted at the bar by the learned advocate for the parties that since 2017 complainant is residing with her parents. Admittedly, FIR has been lodged on 09.08.2018. Further, the matrimonial home is at Hyderabad and petitioner No.1 is residing in Bengaluru.
11. A careful perusal of the complaint in its entire and particularly Paragraphs no.16 and 20 upon which learned advocate for complainant relied upon do not contain the ingredients of Section 498A. Keeping in view the fact that the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute, it was referred to Bengaluru Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre has returned the case papers with a report that both parties are rigid in their stand and therefore there was no settlement.
12. The allegations contained in the complaint are omnibus in nature. The first petitioner resides in Bengaluru. There are no specific allegations against both petitioners. In the circumstances, criminal proceedings against petitioners amount to abuse of process of law.
13. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. FIR No.174/2018 arising out of complaint dated 09.08.2018 registered in Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru, are quashed so far as petitioners are concerned.
13. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV