IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1259/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.PUNITH KUMAR S/O RAJA NAIK AGED 31 YEARS.
2. RAJA NAIK @ RAJU S/O. LACHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
3. SUREKHA W/O. RAJA NAIK AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.18, 5TH CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BANGALORE – 86.
(BY SRI. GIRISHA N.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ... PETITIONERS REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 THROUGH, BIRUR CIRCLE POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRIC – 577 101.
2. S.P. YASHASWINI W/O PUNITH KUMAR D/O S.P. NAIK, AGEDA BOUT 26 YEARS R/AT SANKALPA NILAYA D.H. RUDRAPPA BADAVANE BIROOR TOWN, KADUR TALUK - 577 548 CHIKKAMGALURE.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1;
... RESPONDENTS SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH ON BEHALF OF SRI. K. SRIHARI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C. NO.264/2017 (CR.NO.77/2017 OF BIRUR POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KADUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.264/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Birur Police Station, have sought for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Heard Sri. Girisha N.R, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State and Smt. Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.Srihari for second respondent. Perused the records.
3. Marriage between petitioner and second respondent came to be solemnised on 08.12.2016 at Bangalore and second respondent lodged a complaint before Birur Circle Police Station on 03.05.2017 alleging that from the date of marriage she was constantly harassed and tortured by petitioners, both physically and mentally and she was also threatened by accused Nos.2 and 3 that they would take away her life. On the basis of said complaint lodged before jurisdictional police registered the same FIR in Crime No.77/2017 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.264/2017 for the said offences.
Hence, for quashing of said proceedings petitioners are before this Court.
4. Grounds urged in the petition is to the effect that second respondent-wife has herself walked out of matrimonial home and she is not residing in the matrimonial home from past two months and as such first petitioner had approached Parihar Family Counseling Centre (Police), Bangalore, during January 2017 and she has not responded to them and calls made from the Counseling Centre to the second respondent-complainant was not responded and subsequently at the instance of complainant a maid servant was taken, at which point of time second respondent-complainant returned to matrimonial home and subsequently she was taken care of by fulfilling all her desires and giving her the best medical treatments. It is also submitted that second respondent had again walked out of matrimonial home resulting in first petitioner filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.5549/2017 and all these facts would clearly indicate that present petition is an off shoot on account of steps taken by the first petitioner and hence, petitioners are praying for quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.264/2017.
5. Per contra, Smt.Neeraja Karnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.Srihari for second respondent would support the case of prosecution by contending that there is no merit in the petition and issues which have been raised and grounds urged therein are in the nature of probable defence, which petitioner may raise in the pending proceedings before trial Court and as such it has to be thrashed out during trial and as such she prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State would also submit that there is no merit whatsoever in the petition and submits that after completing investigation it has been found that witnesses have supported the case of complainant and as such correctness of said statements will have to be tested during the trial and prays for rejection of the petition.
7. Having perused the grounds urged in the petition and also having heard the learned Advocates appearing for respondents, it is noticed that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. Records on hand would also disclose that second respondent got married to first petitioner and was staying at the matrimonial home of first petitioner and disputes having arisen between them, resulted in various litigations being initiated. Petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.5549/2017, which first petitioner intends to take umbrage to stave off the allegations made against him by second respondent, even according to petitioner said petition was filed on 09.11.2017 i.e., much subsequent to filing of the complaint in question by second respondent, which was on 03.05.2017.
8. In the complaint lodged by second respondent, she has sequentially and succinctly explained the circumstances under which she was physically and mentally tortured by the petitioners with a demand for dowry. At the stage of considering the prayer for quashing of proceedings what is to be looked into or examined is, whether complaint discloses prima facie offence alleged against accused or not; and, this Court would not examine the correctness or otherwise of statement made by the witnesses, inasmuch as, this Court if it were to undertake such an exercise it may lead to opinion being expressed in that regard and thereby causing prejudice to both the parties. Defence that may be available or aspects which, when established during trial may lead to acquittal, are also not the grounds on which proceedings can be quashed. At that stage, only question which would arise for consideration whether allegations made in the complaint spell out the ingredients of the offence or not? If the answer, is in the affirmative, exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be called for.
9. In this background when complaint in question is perused it would disclose complainant has alleges that on several occasions she has been harassed both mentally and physically and tortured that too with a demand for additional dowry. The witnesses who have been examined by the investigating officer during the course of investigation have also supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated that allegations made in the complainant are true. In that view of the matter, at this stage, it would not be apt and appropriate to quash the proceedings. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no good ground to entertain this petition and as such petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR