IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7273/2016 Between:
1. Siyab S/o Hanja.M Aged about 29 years R/at R.M.L. Nagar, 1st Main, 21st Cross, Shivamogga City, Shivamogga – 577201.
2. Smt.Kathija, W/o M.Hamja, Aged about 50 years, R/at R.M.L. Nagar, 1st Main, 21st Cross, Shivamogga City, Shivamogga – 577201.
3. Rajiya W/o Syed Rizwan Aged about 30 years, R/at # 242, Hollaluru Shivamogga Taluk, Shivamogga – 577216.
4. Saheera W/o Shahuddina, Aged about 32 years, R/at # 152, Pakkiraswamy, Mathadind Pramb Mathhu Bhind, Harihara Town, Davanagere – 577601. … Petitioners (By Sri.Javeed S, Advocate) And:
1. State of Kote Circle Women Police, Shimoga District, Rept. By Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560001.
2. Smt.Sowdath W/o Siyab Aged about 20 years, R/at R.M.L. Nagar, 1st Main, 21st Cross, Shivamogga City, Shivamogga – 577201. ...Respondents (By Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. Spp for R.1 and Sri.Satish Chandra K.V., Advocate for R.2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR registered by the respondent police in CR.No.97/2016 on 18.07.2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and 3, 4 of D.P Act, pending before the JMFC, 2nd Court, Shivamogga District, Balraj URS Road, Shivamooga and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The respondent No.2 (complainant) lodged a report against the petitioners herein on 18.07.2016 alleging that after marriage with accused No.1, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in the matrimonial home and on 22.06.2016, she was sent away from the matrimonial home. Based on the said report, case is registered against the petitioners herein in Crime No.97/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(a), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are general in nature. The respondent No.2 (complainant) has not cited any specific instance constituting the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498(a), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC much less under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Accused No.2 is aged more than 50 years. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the married sisters of accused No.1. They have been residing separately even prior to the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1. Therefore, the allegations are wholly baseless and malafide. Hence, he seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
3. Learned Additional SPP, however, would submit that the matter being under investigation, in view of the specific allegations made against the accused persons during the pendency of the investigation, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
4. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. According to the complainant, she married accused No.1 on 25.10.2015. She was sent away from the matrimonial home on 22.06.2016. According to her, accused Nos.3 and 4, though are married, have been harassing and demanding her to bring dowry whenever they used to visit her matrimonial home. She is not specific as to when accused Nos.3 and 4 had come to matrimonial home and what was the amount that was demanded by them by way of dowry. The records produced by the petitioners indicate that the accused No.3 is residing in Shivamogga and accused No.4 is residing in Davanagere. Except making a vague and general statement that whenever they used to come home, they used to instigate accused No.1 to demand dowry, there is nothing on record to show that pursuant to the alleged instigation, whether any demand was made with the parents of the respondent No.2 at any point of time. The allegations in this regard appear to be vague and baseless. On the other hand, a reading of the complaint indicates that on 22.06.2016, she was sent away from the matrimonial home and it is only thereafter, she lodged the complaint making allegations against the petitioners. The said allegations, even if it is accepted on their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of the offences in so far as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. A reading of the complaint suggests that accused Nos.3 and 4 were not residing in the matrimonial home either at the time of marriage of the complainant or at any time subsequent thereto. Under the said circumstances, the initiation of the criminal action against the petitioners, in my view, is malafide and ulteriorly motivated apart from being false and baseless. In the circumstances, continuation of the investigation against the accused Nos.3 and 4 on the basis of the aforesaid allegation, would be nothing but abuse of the process of Court. To this extent, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following;
ORDER The petition is allowed in part.
Petition filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed.
Petition filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4 is allowed.
FIR registered against accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.97/2016 on 18.07.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(a), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending before the learned JMFC 2nd Court, Shivamogga District, Balraj Urs Road, Shivamogga is hereby quashed and consequently, investigation therein is also quashed.
The investigation shall continue only against accused Nos.1 and 2, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM