IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Crl.P.No. 3019/2017 BETWEEN 1. SRI. GURUMURTHY S/O LATE SREENIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.682, GROUND FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 034.
2. SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI W/O GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.682, GROUND FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 034 3. SMT. DEEPA W/O MAHESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.682 2ND FLOOR, 4TH BLOOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 034.
4. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE SREENIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS RESIDING AT MELAM DODDI VILLAGE, PUNGANUR TALUK CHITTOR DISTRICT A.P.
5. SRI. SHANKAR BHAGWAN S/O LATE SREENIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9/A 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN BALAJI LAYOUT HONGASANDRA BANGALORE 560 068.
6. SRI. VENKATARAMANA S/O LATE SREENIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.320/33 17TH CROSS, 26TH MAIN J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078.
7. SMT. PARVATHI W/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9/A 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, BALAJI LAYOUT HONGASANDRA BANGALORE 560 068.
8. SMT. SUDHA W/O VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESDING AT NO.320/33, 17TH CROSS, 26TH MAIN J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE BANGALORE 560 068.
(BY SRI B RAVINDRA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BANGALORE 560 001.
... PETITIONERS 2. SRI. GANGADHAR S/O LATLE SUBRAMANYA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT BEHIND SAHANESHWARA TEMPLE DOUBLE ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPURA DIST 563 125.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.661/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This criminal petition is filed by accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 for quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.661/2016 on the file of the 45th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Facts germane for this case are:
Complainant’s (respondent No.2 herein) 5th daughter by name Mrs. Revathy was given in marriage to accused No.1 - Rajesh on 27.09.2012. It is alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to accused No.1 apart from giving gold ornaments and on account of delay in his daughter conceiving, the in-laws i.e., accused persons started harassing her as informed by his daughter and subsequently when she gave birth to a female child, accused persons started making demand for securing additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- which is also said to have been given by the complainant. It is further alleged that after celebration of first birthday of his grand child at Chintamani on 07.08.2015 his daughter returned back to her in-laws place at Bangalore and on 16.08.2015 he was informed that she had committed suicide. Hence, complainant alleged that his daughter committed suicide on account of harassment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws including accused persons.
3. The jurisdictional police registered an FIR in Crime No.502/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation charge sheet has been filed for the said offences in C.C.No.26634/2015 and on committal order being passed, same is registered in S.C.No.661/2016.
4. I have heard the arguments of Sri B. Ravindra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri S. Chandrashekharaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent – State.
5. Contention of Sri B. Ravindra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner is criminal proceedings are being continued against accused persons without any material on record and particularly in the background of death note suggesting no overt act by the petitioners. Hence, contending if proceedings are continued against petitioners it would be an abuse of process of law, he prays for quashing of the same. He would elaborate his submissions by contending that accused No.6 who is the grand mother of accused No.1 is aged about 90 years and is a permanent resident of Chittoor district and she had never stayed with deceased and accused persons permanently at Bangalore and only with an intention to harass the old lady, she has been implicated as an accused. He would further contend that accused No.5 is wife of accused No.4 has also been arraigned as accused though no allegation is made in the complaint. He would submit that when entire charge sheet material does not disclose any offence having been committed by her, continuation of proceedings requires to be quashed. He would also submit that accused Nos. 7 to 10 being the brothers and sisters-in-law of accused No.1 have been unnecessarily and without any material suggesting their complicity in the alleged demand for dowry have also been arraigned as accused and as such proceedings should not be continued against them.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State would support the initiation of proceedings against all the accused persons and would contend that act of each accused will have to be examined only after evidence is tendered by the prosecution and at this stage, exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceedings should not be undertaken particularly when charge sheet material does not disclose complicity of petitioners. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. A bare reading of Section 498-A of IPC would indicate that object behind the enactment is to check and curb a married woman being subjected to cruelty by the relatives of husband. It is common practice that whenever a married woman dies by committing suicide within a span of 7 years of her marriage, the tendency is to lodge a complaint not only making allegation of demand for dowry having been made by husband and his family members but the tendency is also to allege cruelty having been meted out to deceased and in such circumstances, the tendency of the police is to implicate all the members of the family of husband of deceased. The object behind the Act is to punish the guilty and at the same time innocent should also be protected as otherwise they would be made to undergo the ordeal of trial which material even if unrebutted would end in acquittal. Under the guise of undertaking such an exercise, this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction neither will hold a mini trial nor examine charge sheet material as though evaluating said material placed by the prosecution is after recording of the evidence. In such circumstances, it would be safe and appropriate to leave it to the jurisdictional Court to examine such material after prosecution would tender its evidence by examining the witnesses. At the same time, this Court would also be required to ensure that such of those persons whose complicity in the alleged role being too remote should also not to be harassed by making them to undergo the ordeal of trial. Thus, a balance will have to be struck between these two. On this proposition the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. VS.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. reported in AIR 2017 SCC 3869 has held:
8. Referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India(1), Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand(2), Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh (3), Savitri Devi versus Ramesh Chand (4), it was submitted that misuse of the provision is judicially acknowledged and there is need to adopt measures to prevent such misuse. The Madras High Court in M.P. No.1 of 2008 in Cr. O.P. No.1089 of 2008 dated 4th August, 2008 directed issuance of following guidelines:
“It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the enactment of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition 1 (2005) 6 SCC 281 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 3 (2010) 13 SCC 540 4 ILR (2003) I Delhi 484 Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction. Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations. Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant. By suitably dealing with such matters, the injury to innocents could be avoided to a considerable extent by the Magistrates, but, if the Magistrates themselves accede to the bare requests of the police without examining the actual state of affairs, it would create negative effects thereby, the very purpose of the legislation would be defeated and the doors of conciliation would be closed forever. The husband and his family members may have difference of opinion in the dispute, for which, arrest and judicial remand are not the answers. The ultimate object of every legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocents.”
9. Delhi High Court vide order dated 4th August, 2008 in Chander Bhan versus State in Bail Application No.1627/2008 directed issuance of following guidelines :
“2. Police Authorities:
(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Standing Order No.330/2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest in the dowry cases registered under Sections 498-
A/406 IPC and the said guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police strictly and scrupulously.
(i) No case under Section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl.DCP.
(ii) Arrest of main accused should be made only after thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.
5 (2008) 151 DLT 691 (iii) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law etc. should only be made after prior approval of DCP on file.
(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well behaved staff in all the crime against women cells especially the lady officers, all well equipped with the abilities of perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance.
(c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine manner.
(d) The endeavour of the Police should be to scrutinize complaints very carefully and then register FIR.
(e) The FIR should be registered only against those persons against whom there are strong allegations of causing any kind of physical or mental cruelty as well as breach of trust.
(f) All possible efforts should be made, before recommending registration of any FIR, for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of settlement, then necessary steps in the first instance be taken to ensure return of stridhan and dowry articles etc. by the accused party to the complainant.”
8. In the light of above and on careful analysis of the charge sheet material it would clearly indicate that even if the allegations made in the complaint were to go uncontroverted, it would not lead in the conviction of all the accused viz., 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Continuation of proceedings against these accused would definitely be onerous and it would only take away precious judicial time but also it would be an abuse of process of law, since charge sheet material placed on record when perused would disclose following aspects:-
a. Accused No.5 is co-sister of the deceased and none of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution during the course of investigation have alleged any harassment having been meted out to deceased by accused No.5. Even in the purported death note of deceased, the only reference relates to eatables being brought from the parental home of accused No.5 was being consumed by all the members of 1st accused, whereas food items or food articles being brought by the deceased from her parental home was not been consumed by the members of her husband family. This would not fall within the expression of cruelty as found in the Explanation to Section 498-A.
(b) Accused No.6 who is aged about 90 years is the grand-mother of accused No.1 and who undisputedly is residing at Punganur Taluk, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. Except a omnibus statement that whenever she used to visit the house of accused No.1 she was alleging that deceased had given birth to a female child, there is no whisper with regard to any harassment meted out by her to the deceased.
c) Insofar as accused Nos. 7 and 9 are concerned, they are brother and sister-in- law of accused No.1. They are not residing along with accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5. On the other hand they are residing at Hongasandra and there is no allegation against them for having meted out any harassment to the deceased. Omnibus allegation is made that whenever they used to visit the house of deceased they used to make reckless allegations and as such it amounted to mental cruelty. Even such statement would not fall within the definition of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A.
d) The same analogy extended to accused Nos. 7 and 9 would be applicable insofar as Accused No.10 is concerned who is wife of accused No.8. Though accused Nos. 6 and 8 are contended to be standing on the same footing as of accused Nos.7 and 9, same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that statement of all the witnesses recorded by the prosecution would indicate that at an undisputed point of time an allegation was been made by the said accused persons that deceased had committed theft of Rs.10,000/- and on the said pretext she had been driven to her parental home to bring back the said sum of Rs.10,000/ and a specific allegation is made in that regard that she was physically and mentally tortured for the said incident. As to whether such an incident took place and if so that was the complicity or the role played by accused Nos.6 and 8 is an issue which will have to be thrashed out during the course of trial. Any opinion expressed by this Court at this stage is likely to prejudice the rights of both parties. Hence, no opinion is expressed in that regard.
9. In the light of the aforestated discussion, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 is not called for as it would be an abuse of process of law and they would be made to undergo the ordeal of trial without there being material placed by the prosecution to establish the charge.
10. Hence, the following:
ORDER Criminal petition is allowed in part. Proceedings pending as against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 in S.C.No. 661/2016 on the file of the 45th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore, is hereby quashed and they are acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
I.A.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE VP