IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.55705/2018 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.56124/2018, 56125/2018 AND 56126/2018 (GM RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Manjunath.N S/o Shivamurthy Aged 29 years R/at # 174 A, AGS Layout RMV 2nd Stage Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru-560 094.
...(Petitioner in W.P. No.55705/2018) 2. Smt.Padma W/o Shivamurthy Aged 50 years R/at # 174 A, AGS Layout RMV 2nd Stage Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru-560 094.
...(Petitioner in W.P. No.56124/2018) 3. Sri.Shivamurthy.K S/o Late Kannaiah Aged 64 years R/at # 174 A, AGS Layout RMV 2nd Stage Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru-560 094.
...(Petitioner in W.P. No.56125/2018) 4. Kum.Nayana N.S D/o Shivamurthy Aged 22 years R/at # 174 A, AGS Layout RMV 2nd Stage Sanjay Nagar Bengaluru-560 094.
...(Petitioner in W.P. No.56126/2018) (By Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Senior Advocate for Sri.N.Gowtham Raghunath, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By Chamarajanagara Women’s Police Station Chamarajanagara District Chamarajanagar-573 131.
2. Dr.R.Ashwini W/o Dr.Manjunath.N.S Aged Major R/at Sri.Kaivalya Devi Nilaya Behind District Court Near KHB Colony Chamarajanagar-573 131.
… Common Respondents (By Sri.S.T.Naik, HCGP for R1 Sri.A.M.Vijay, Advocate for R2) These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the complaint and FIR in 11/2018 dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure-A, B) as registered by R-1 police for the offences punishable U/s 498A, 342, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964 against the petitioners and etc., These petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard.
2. Though matter is listed for hearing on Interlocutory Application, by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. Marriage between petitioner and second respondent came to be solemnized on 19.04.2018 at Sara conventional Hall, Mysuru. On 24.09.2018, a complaint came to be lodged by second respondent herein against petitioners alleging cruelty meted out to her both physically and mentally with a demand for additional dowry and said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.11/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964.
4. Matter is under investigation by the jurisdictional Police. Hence, for quashing of the FIR, petitioners are before this Court.
5. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship namely first petitioner being the husband of second respondent and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of second respondent and petitioner No.4, being the sister of the first petitioner.
6. Quashing of the criminal proceedings is as called for wherein complaint does not disclose any offence or it is so frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence for which learned trial Judge has taken cognizance, this Court would interfere and quash the proceedings. At the stage of considering the prayer for quashing, it is not necessary that meticulous analysis of the materials relied by Investigating Officer is to be done and find out whether case ends in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein, that ingredients of the offences are disclosed then there would be no justification for this Court to quash the proceedings.
7. Defence that may be available to the accused or facts which established during trial, may lead to acquittal are not the grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At this stage, it is to be examined as to whether allegations made in the complaint spell out or disclose the ingredients of criminal offence or not. However, at the same time, omnibus statement in the complaint against all the relatives of the husband would not suffice and such omnibus statement if does not satisfy the ingredients of the provisions invoked then in such circumstances, exercise of extraordinary power or quashing would be called for in as much directing distant relatives of the accused who are in no way responsible of the alleged offence or there being no specific overt-act alleged against them would result in injustice being perpetrated on them and to continue the proceedings against them would not only be onerous but it would also be abuse of process of law. If the complaint does not disclose any specific overt-acts of any accused and on the strength of omnibus statement if attempts are made by the prosecution to proceed against such persons, then in such circumstances, exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court is called for. It is in this background contention raised by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, deserves to be examined, as complaint in question would disclose the allegation made against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are same. However, an omnibus statement has been made against respondent No.4 who is the sister of the first accused. To be take note of such allegations made against petitioner No.4 as per the allegations made in the complaint reads:
“¢£ÁAPÀ:12-08-2018 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ-ªÀiÁªÀ, £Á¢¤ EvÀgÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV 4 wAUÀ¼Á¬ÄvÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁzÀ gÀÆ.50,00,000/- MAzÀÄ PÁgÀÄ, ¸ÉÊmï PÉÆr JAzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß UÀAqÀ CªÁåZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ½î ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä AiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ CµÀÖgÀ°è £ÀªÀÄUÉ w½zÀªÀgÉà DzÀ °AUÀgÁdÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¹zÀÝgÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĺÉÃAzÀægÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ F jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®èªÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢ÞªÁzÀ ºÉý £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀjAzÀ gÀQë¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CvÉÛ-ªÀiÁªÀ ºÁUÀÆ £Á¢¤AiÀĪÀgÀÄ CªÁåZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤A¢¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”
8. A bare reading of above allegations made against respondent No.4 would disclose that she is said to have accompanied petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, who are said to have been abused the parents of second respondent. Even if the allegations made against her (4th petitioner) were to remain uncontroverted, it would not lead to her conviction for the offences punishable under Section 498A and the allegations made against petitioner No.4 being omnibus allegations, continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.4 would definitely be onerous, waste of precious judicial time and it would amount to abuse of process of law.
For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed in part;
ii) WP.Nos.56124/2018, 56125/2018 and WP.No.55705/2018 are hereby dismissed.
iii) WP.No.56126/2018 filed by the Accused is hereby allowed and proceedings pending against petitioner No.4 in Cr.No.11/2018 registered by Chamarajanagara Women’s Police Station registered for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 342, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964 is hereby quashed and petitioner No.4 is acquitted of above said offences.
Ordered accordingly.
Petitioners are at liberty to work out their rights in the pending proceedings before the trial Court if so advised.
SD/- JUDGE SB