IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.786 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNA RAJU S/O LATE N. NARAYANA RAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.586, 9TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, KEMPAPURA, HEBAL, BENGALURU -24 (BY SRI: HEMANTH KUMAR .D. ADVOCATE FOR SRI: SHIVA SHANKAR C, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT VANI @ JALAJA W/O ASHOK RAJ URS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O HOSAKOPPA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577223 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NYAMATHI POLICE, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577223 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT: MANJUNATH V.RAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.181/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jn.Dn) AND JMFC AT HONNALI REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is absent.
2. Petitioner is the father-in-law of the first respondent/complainant. A reading of the complaint indicates that all the allegations are directed against her husband and not against the petitioner. According to respondent No.1, her marriage with her husband was performed on 15.09.2014 and thereafter, for a brief period, she stayed with her in-laws in the house of her husband. Though it is alleged that, at the instance of her mother-in-law, her husband was pestering her for additional dowry, there is no clear averments as to whether the alleged demand was made by the petitioner at any point of time. There is nothing on record to indicate that she had paid any such dowry amount to the petitioner herein. The other allegations made in the complaint that on 31.10.2015, at about 11.30 a.m., her husband came to her parents’ house and abused her in vulgar language and when she asked him to take her to Bengaluru, he held her tuft and quarreled with her. Even this allegation does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The allegations made the complaint, even if accepted as true, do not make out the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. Hence, proceedings initiated against the petitioner being an abuse of the process of court cannot be allowed to continue.
Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. F.I.R. in Crime No.181/2015 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 506, 498A and 504 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.
This order shall not come in the way of the Investigating Officer proceeding against any other person involved in the said offences.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss