IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7399 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Chandappa Master Aged 74 years, Son of Poovappa, Residing at PCN Nivasa, Poyye House, Ananthady, Ananthady Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District-577 013.
2. Smt. Shankari, Aged 67 years, Wife of Chandappa Master, Residing at PN Nivasa, Poyye House, Ananthady, Ananthady Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. – 577 013. …Petitioners (By Sri. P.P. Hegde, Advocate) AND:
1. The State – Through the Investigating Sub Inspector of Police, Officer, Vittal Police Station, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District-577 013.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Mrs. Akshatha, Major, Wife of Naveen Kumar, Residing at Lakshmi Nivasa, Campco Road, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka-577 013. ...Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.50/2015 of Vittal Police Station and the charge sheet pending in C.C.No.1159/2015 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bantwal for the offence P/U/S 498(A), 504 and 506 R/W 34 of IPC, in so far as these petitioners are concerned.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the charge sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. A reading of the charge sheet reveals that accused No.1 married respondent No.2 on 21.05.2010 and after marriage, for about one year she was residing in her matrimonial home and during which time accused No.1 is stated to have gone abroad for work. According to the prosecution, during her stay in the matrimonial home, she was subjected to ill treatment and harassment by the petitioners herein at the instance of accused No.1. There are no specific instances of alleged cruelty or harassment meted out to respondent No.2 by the petitioners. In the charge sheet, it is stated that the petitioners herein were not allowing respondent No.2 to talk with accused No.1 over phone. In the complaint lodged by her, at the first instance she has stated that one year after marriage, she joined accused No.1 at Dubai, which goes to show that she lived in the matrimonial home along with accused Nos.2 and 3/petitioners herein only for a period of one year. The very fact that she has joined her husband in the year 2011 and lived with him for about two years until she became pregnant in the year 2013, indicates that the relation between her and accused No.1 was cordial. In the said circumstance, the allegations made in the charge sheet that at the instance of accused No.1 the petitioners herein were ill treating and harassing respondent No.2 is difficult to believe.
3. Even otherwise the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet indicate that respondent No.2 returned to India in the year 2013 after she became pregnant and for some time, she resided in her matrimonial home. From the reading of the complaint it can be gathered that the real grievance of respondent No.2 is, the refusal of accused No.1 to take her back to matrimonial home. It is evident from the complaint that in the month of April, 2018 when accused No.1 returned to Dubai, he refused to take her back and her child to matrimonial home. Apparently, on account of refusal of accused No.1 to take her back to matrimonial home, respondent No.2 appears to have roped in petitioners herein making baseless allegations that at the instance of accused No.1, she was subjected to ill treatment and harassment by the petitioners herein.
4. Moreover, these allegations even if accepted on their face value as true, in my view, they do not prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498(A), 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. In order to constitute an offence under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, as held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, the cruelty meted out to the victim should be of such a nature so as to trigger her to commit suicide or cause injury or deterioration of health. Such allegations are conspicuously absent in this case. In this context, it may be apposite to refer to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varala Bharath Kumar And Another – vs – State of Telangana And Another reported in (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 413, wherein at paragraph 8 it is observed as under :-
“We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the aforementioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.”
5. In the absence of any such material constituting the ingredients of the above offence insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, their prosecution amount to abuse of the process of Court and is liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The charge sheet and consequent proceedings in C.C.No.1159/2015 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bantwal, are quashed only insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, The trial shall proceed against other accused in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC