IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA BETWEEN:
1. PREETHA, CRL.P.NO.8637/2016 W/O JAI PRAKASH, KURUNJI, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT KURUNCHI, NO.302, HARSHA RESIDENCY, KADARIKAMBARA ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 001.
2. SUNISH S.K., S/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, FLAT NO.506, SRIKAN TIARA, 1ST MAIN, BEHIND GOLDEN PARK APARTMENT, KODICHIKKANHALLI, BANGALORE – 76.
(BY SRI.MAHESH C.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SAKALESHPURA POLICE STATION, …PETITIONERS SAKALESHPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SMT.HITHASHRI, W/O PRAMESH, AGED 32 YEARS, HANUBALU HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, DISTRICT: HASSAN – 573 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP II FOR R1; SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.246/2016 REGISTERED WITH SAKALESHPURA RURAL P.S., SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, U/S 498A, 323, 324, 506, 149 OF IPC R/W SECTION 3, 4 OF D.P. ACT AND FILED IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them in Cr.No.246/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 506, 149 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’). The said FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2- Smt.Hithashri.
3. According to the complainant, she married accused No.1 on 09.11.2012 as per Hindu customs. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 was given gold ornaments namely neck chain, finger ring, bracelet in all approximately weighing around 100 gms. She has a child aged about three years. After the marriage, for some days, she was looked after well by her husband, mother- in-law and father-in-law. Thereafter, all the three started harassing her physically and mentally to bring dowry from her parents. When the same was informed to her parents, they came to her house and pacified the family members. In this regard, Panchayat was also held. It is further alleged that on 09.10.2016, when the complainant and her mother-in-law/accused No.2 were in the kitchen, the complainant asked her mother-in-law to return the ornaments pledged by her. Accused No.2-mother-in-law started shouting at her and assaulted her with ladle near the neck, accused no.1 caught hold of her neck and hit her to the wall and accused No.1/husband who was present in the house intervened and abused her and kicked her and took out a gun and threatened her that he will shoot her. At that time, accused No.3-father-in-law gave a blow on her cheek. Thereafter, her younger brother, who had come to her house intervened and took her in his car to C.I. Hospital, Sakaleshpura, for treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners do not attract the offences alleged in the FIR. The petitioner No.1 is married and she is residing in her matrimonial house along with her husband in Mangaluru and petitioner No.2- her brother-in-law is residing in Bengaluru. The averments made in the complaint indicate that only the complainant and accused Nos.1 to 3 were residing in Kumbardi village, Sakaleshpur and there had been no occasion for the petitioners herein to go to the Kumbardi village and harass the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint in regard to ill-treatment and harassment given to the complainant do not attract the ingredients of D.P. Act and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and abuse process of court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 however have argued in support of the allegations made in the complaint contending that these allegations squarely attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The complainant has narrated the sequence of events and overt act committed by each of the accused. The matter is under investigation. Therefore, quashing of proceedings do not arise at this stage and thus, seek for dismissal of the petition.
7. A reading of the complaint indicates that after the marriage, the complainant was residing in her matrimonial house along with accused-1 to 3. The only allegation made against the petitioners herein is that about one week earlier to the incident the petitioners herein asked the complainant not to quarrel over petty issues and suggested her to set up a separate house or else to give divorce to her husband-accused No.1. These allegations, in my view, do not attract the ingredients of the offences under the provisions of the DP Act. The said allegations even if accepted as true would only mean that in the interest of the complainant, the petitioners herein advised her not to quarrel over petty issues and urged her to set up a separate house. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the petitioners herein have demanded any dowry from the complainant; therefore by no stretch of imagination, the said statement can be construed as dowry demand. “Dowry” is defined under Section 2 of the DP Act, as under:
“2. `Dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:
a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties but does not include dowry or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security’ has the same meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
8. There is nothing in the entire complaint to suggest that the petitioners herein demanded dowry either in connection with the marriage or in consideration thereof. Therefore, in my view, the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners herein do not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against them. Consequently, the proceeding initiated against the petitioners being abuse of process of court is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Cr.No.246/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 506, 149 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act is quashed in so far as the petitioners herein namely accused No.4-Preetha W/o Jai Prakash and accused No.5-Sunish S.K. S/o Kumaraswamy are concerned. Investigation shall proceed in respect of other accused persons in accordance with law.
Since the main petition is allowed, I.A.No.1/18 filed by respondent No.2/complainant for vacating the interim order dated 02.12.2016 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE TL