IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5310 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.S.DODDAIAH, S/O LATE SRI.SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O SRI.M.S.DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF MANUVINAKURIKE VILLAGE, C.N.DURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT – 572 129.
3. SMT. RANJITHA, D/O SRI.M.S.DODDAIAH, W/O SRI.ANAND C., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.86, ‘LAKSHMI NILAYA’, 9TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BYRAVESHWARA NAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU – 560 058.
4. SRI.RAMAIAH, S/O SRI BHEEMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O KODITHIMMANAHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 127.
(BY SRI.K.ABHINAV ANAND, ADV.,) AND:
…PETITIONERS 1. SMT. ROOPA B., W/O SRI.DAYANANDA G., D/O BYLA NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O NARAYANAPURA, KAMBAL POST, SOMAPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SHO OF KORATAGERE P.S., TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R-2; SRI.MANU N.P., ADV., FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.81/2017 IN SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KORATAGERE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2.
2. The charge sheet is laid against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. A perusal of the charge sheet and averments made in the complaint indicate that all the allegations constituting the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are directed only against accused No.1. According to the second respondent, she married accused No.1 on 23.05.2013 and she lived in the matrimonial house with accused No.1 only for three months, thereafter, accused No.1 alleged to have ill-treated her demanding bike and sent her to her parents house.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.07.2014 at about 11.00 p.m., respondent No.1 was driven out of the matrimonial house. These averments clearly go to show that after living with accused No.1 for about six months, respondent No.1 was thrown out of the matrimonial house and she was living in her parents house. Thereafter, when she came back to the matrimonial house, she was driven out of the matrimonial house. These allegations even if accepted as true on its face value do not constitute the ingredients of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, insofaras accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned.
Section 498-A of IPC reads as under:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
5. There is no averment whatsoever in the entire charge sheet that the second respondent was subjected to any cruelty by the petitioners herein. The allegations made in the charge sheet indicate that during her stay in the matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty only by her husband and even the allegations of ill-treatment are leveled only against accused No.1 and not against any of the petitioners. There is not even remote allegation in the complaint or in the charge sheet that the petitioners herein demanded any dowry from the complainant or that her parents paid any amount as dowry into the hands of the petitioners.
6. Petitioner No.4 is totally unconnected to the family of the petitioners. Without even there being any allegations against him, he has been implicated in the alleged offences which indicate that even the Investigating Officer has not conducted proper investigation and by yielding to the pressure has filed the charge sheet.
7. If in fact respondent No.1 is driven out of the matrimonial house, appropriate remedy is available to respondent No.1 to take recourse under the provisions of Protection of Women from Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations made in the complaint, in my view, do not attract any of the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC nor Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the absence of any allegations constituting the said offences and without there being any prima facie material in support of the accusations constituting these offences, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court.
8. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.81/2017 on the file of learned Civil Judge & JMFC at Koratagere, Tumakuru District are hereby quashed only insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB