IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.14/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SMITHA W/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRI SANNACHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT ANNAPPA SMRUTHI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT BUS STAND, HALIYAL, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 206.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. SHYLAJA W/O SRI N.A.ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A NO.1239/1, OPPOSITE POLICE QUARTERS, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL HOBLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125.
(BY SRI B.RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM IN CRL.MISC.NO.1357/2015 WHICH ARE PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, ANEKAL, AS FAR AS THE PROCEEDINGS RELATE TO THE PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 HEREIN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners are shown as accused Nos.4 and 5 in the petition filed by the respondent before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal, in C.Misc.No.1357/2015. The said petition was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005” for short).
2. According to the complainant, her marriage with accused No.1 - Sri N.A.Anil Kumar, was solemnized on 19.10.2014. After marriage, she started residing with her husband/accused No.1 at Tumkur. Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 was the Judicial Officer at the relevant point of time working in Haliyal.
3. The only allegation made against petitioner No.2 (accused No.5) finds place in paragraph No.6 of the petition reads as under:
“Thereafter, prior one week of marriage, the parents of the respondent No.1 together with Mr.Chandrashekar, who is the Judicial Officer, Son-in-law of Mr.R.Allappa, came to the house of the petitioner’s father and demanded for paying Rs.5,00,000/- in the guise of meeting their marriage expenses. The father of the petitioner who had sold lands/sites for performing the marriage of the petitioner was forced to pay the same. On receipt of the above amount, the father of the respondent No.1 demanded for performing marriage in grand scale by preparing food for nearly 3000 people”.
4. From the above averments, it cannot be gathered as to when petitioner No.2 accompanied his father to the house of her parents. The date of the alleged demand is not specified in the petition. Be that as it may, even with regard to receipt of the said dowry amount, there is no specific averment as to whom the said amount was paid. On going through the averments made in the petition, it could be inferred that the amount was paid to her father-in-law and not to petitioner No.2. Apart from the above allegations, there is nothing in the entire complaint to suggest that the petitioners herein were in domestic relation with the respondent or that they were instrumental in subjecting the complainant for domestic violence or for economic violence as sought to be projected by the complainant/respondent. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the petition does not even contain a remote averment to the effect that petitioner No.1 had lived with the respondent at any point of time or that she had any occasion to subject her to alleged domestic violence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5845/2015 dated 09.01.2019, which discloses that the respondent herein had lodged a complaint in the very same police station against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the petitioners herein making similar allegations that during the marriage talks Rs.5 lakh was paid and the same was received by the accused persons.
6. In the said order, it has been held that insofar as offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the only allegation against petitioner No.2 is that on the date of marriage, petitioner No.2 and other accused persons questioned the respondent and her father as to why they did not bring ‘Honda City Car’ demanded by them to the marriage pendal. There were allegations in the said complaint with regard to the alleged demand or receipt of Rs.5.00 lakh one week prior to the date of marriage as alleged in the instant petition. Considering the false allegations made against the petitioners, the prosecution instituted against petitioner No.2 in Crime No.191/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5845/2015.
7. The instant petition is filed in the year 2016.
The allegations made against the petitioners on the face of it are contrary to the allegations made in the previous proceedings, which again go to show that with malafide intention and sinister design, false and baseless allegations are leveled against the petitioners solely with a view to implicate all the family members of her husband.
8. On considering the entire case set up by the respondent, I am of the view that the allegations made in the petition, even if accepted on their face value, do not constitute any elements of offence falling within the ambit of the provisions of the Act, 2005. The petitioners appear to have been implicated solely with a view to settle score with her husband against whom she is having serious matrimonial discord. The records indicate that charge sheet is filed only against accused No.1/husband for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The other family members who were initially implicated, by the respondent have been exonerated of the charges and the proceedings against them have already been quashed by this Court and the Investigating Officer has submitted ‘B’ report insofar as other accused persons are concerned.
9. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, in the absence of any prima facie material in proof of the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners, I hold that prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is illegal and an utter abuse of process of Court. The uncontroverted allegations made in the petition and the evidence relied on in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners. On the other hand, the circumstances discussed above go to show that the proceeding initiated by the respondent is manifestly attended with malafides and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners to settle score with her estranged husband and therefore to prevent further abuse of court and to secure ends of justice, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.Misc.No.1357/2015 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal, are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB