IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3856 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRIDHAR S/O. LATE ARMUGAUM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.24/5-1, MUNIRAMAIAH LANE, PARK ROAD, COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE.
2. AMUDHA W/O. SAKTHIVEL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT 1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 043.
3. GEETHA W/O. SATHYASEELAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/46, 12TH ‘A’ CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, GUBAMMA LAYOUT, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010.
4. VANITHA W/O. KRUPA KARAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.2, 1ST CROSS, ARTILARY ROAD, GOUTHAM NAGAR, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.,) AND:
1. VANISHREE W/O. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/7, 7TH MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE CITY.
2. STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE -560 004.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R2 R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.17016/11 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT 1961, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1, ALLOW THIS CRL.PETN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet filed against them in C.C.No.17016/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are sisters-in-law of respondent No.1. Marriage between respondent No.1 and accused No.1 was solemnized on 23.01.2006 and she has begotten a child through accused No.1. According to respondent No.1, after one year of their marriage, she was harassed and ill-treated by the petitioners and she was sent out of the matrimonial house and since then, she has been residing in her parents house along with the child. Since 23.04.2009 accused No.1 has been visiting respondent No.1 weekly once and it is alleged that even during those visits, accused No.1 used to beat and assault complainant/respondent No.1. It is further alleged that on 25.10.2009, accused No.1 picked up quarrel with respondent No.1 and poisoned the food and tried to feed the same to the child and when respondent No.1 intervened, he rushed to the shop and brought alcohol, tablets and tried to consume the same.
3. A reading of the averments made in the FIR, charge sheet and the statement of complainant and witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution indicates that after the marriage, respondent No.1 lived with petitioner No.1 namely accused No.1 for a period of one year and thereafter, she has been living with her parents. According to the complainant, accused No.1 was visiting her parents house once in a week. Except making general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners herein that they had ill-treated, harassed and demanded additional dowry from the complainant, no specific instances of harassment or dowry demand are alleged against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 namely accused Nos.2 to 4 attracting any of the above offences charged against them.
4. It is also noticed that initially FIR was registered against nine persons including the parents of accused No.1 and others on the specific allegations that the persons named in the FIR assaulted and ill-treated the complainant. But the charge sheet is laid only against accused Nos.1 to 4. Since there are absolutely no material in support of the accusation leveled against parents of accused No.1 making out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 appear to have been implicated without any basis with a malafide intention to settle score with her husband namely accused No.1.
5. Considering the entire material on record, I find that the prosecution of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 for the above said offences is wholly illegal, malafide, vexatious and it is the abuse of process of Court. Hence, proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 i.e., accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Proceedings initiated against petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 (accused Nos.2, 3 and 4) in C.C.No.17016/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.
6. Petition insofar as accused No.1 i.e., petitioner No.1 is concerned is dismissed and the proceedings shall continue against accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ