IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8466/2016 C/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.8467/2016 In Crl.P. No.8466/2016 BETWEEN:
1. Tharanath, S/o Rangappa, Aged about 30 years, 2. Rangappa, S/o Mahadevappa, Aged about 64 years, 3. Basamma, W/o Rangappa, Aged about 62 years, All are R/at 7th Cross, Maruthi Nagar, Chitradurga Town, Chitradurga – 577 501. …Petitioners (By Sri. Mohan Kumara .D, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Chitradurga Town, Police Station, Chitradurga – 577 501. Represented by HCGP High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Smt. Kavya W/o Tharanath, Aged about 22 years, R/at V.P. Extension, 2nd Cross, Opposite to Forest Quarters, Chitradurga Town, Chitradurga – 577 501. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-1 Sri. Praveen .C, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc. No.164/2016 initiated for the offence punishable under Section 12(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga.
In Crl.P. No.8467/2016 BETWEEN:
1. Tharanath, S/o Rangappa, Aged about 30 years, 2. Rangappa, S/o Mahadevappa, Aged about 64 years, 3. Basamma, W/o Rangappa, Aged about 62 years, All are R/at 7th Cross, Maruthi Nagar, Chitradurga Town, Chitradurga – 577 501. …Petitioners (By Sri. Mohan Kumara .D, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Chitradurga Town , Police Station, Chitradurga – 577 501. Represented by HCGP High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Smt. Kavya, W/o Tharanath, Aged about 22 years, R/at V.P. Extension, 2nd Cross, Opposite to Forest Quarters, Chitradurga Town, Chitradurga – 577 501. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-1 Sri. Praveen .C, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.874/2016 initiated in pursuance of the Crime No.532/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 342, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the file of Principal/II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga.
These Criminal petitions coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In both these petitions accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crl.Misc.No.164/2016 registered under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and C.C.No.874/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
3. Respondent No.2 – Smt. Kavya, lodged a complaint before the Chitradurga Police on 11.12.2015 wherein she alleged that she married accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) on 07.09.2014. At the time of marriage, accused persons demanded and received dowry of 12 tolas of gold and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. After marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment. Three months after the incident, accused No.1 set up a separate house to her in Bengaluru. But, even thereafter, at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3, he continued ill-treatment and harassment to respondent No.2. It is further alleged that on 04.12.2015, her parents had come to her house at Bengaluru and accused No.1 insulted them and hence, they went back to Chitradurga. On the same day, accused No.1 brought her to the house of accused Nos.2 and 3, where the accused persons once again made a demand for additional dowry and confined her in a room for four days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and baseless. Respondent No.2 was residing separately with accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) at Bengaluru and there was no occasion for accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners no.2 and 3) either to make a demand for additional dowry or to confine her in the room as alleged in the complaint. The statement of respondent No.2 suffer from serious contradictions and improbabilities, yet the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences against all the accused and hence, he seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the witnesses make out all the ingredients of the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, charge sheet is lodged against the petitioners. The said charge sheet reinforces the allegations. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that a false case has been registered against them cannot be accepted and thus, seeks for dismissal of the petitions.
6. On going through the materials on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 07.09.2014 and thereafter, she stayed with the accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.2 and 3) only for a period of three months at Chitradurga.
According to her, three months after the marriage, accused No.1 set up a separate house for her in Bengaluru and both of them were residing in Bengaluru. Her allegation against accused No.1 is that he continued his ill-treatment and harassment to her even at Bengaluru. The allegations in so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.1 and 2) are concerned, do not find any supporting evidence either in the complaint or in the material produced by the Investigating Agency. Except making bald allegations that at the instance of his parents, accused No.1 was subjecting her to ill- treatment and harassment, the complainant has not narrated any specific instance of abetment by accused Nos.2 and 3. On the other hand, the circumstances narrated in the complaint and the charge sheet indicate that all throughout accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing at Chitradurga. Therefore, the allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 3 that they had confined the complainant-respondent No.2 in a room at Chitradurga also appears to be highly improbable and unbelievable. According to the complainant, on 04.12.2015, her parents had come to her house at Bengaluru. Her complaint is silent as to when and at what time her parents i.e., CW6 and CW7 had come to her house. As narrated by her in the complaint, on the same day after 07.30 P.M. she was taken to Chitradurga and was confined in the house, appears to be far from truth.
7. From the reading of the charge sheet, it can be safely held that accused Nos.2 and 3 are sought to be implicated in the alleged offences solely on account of their relationship with accused No.1. The material allegations are directed only against accused No.1 and having regard to the circumstances discussed above, there was no occasion for accused Nos.2 and 3 to commit the alleged offences. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution initiated against accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.2 and 3) is nothing but an abuse of Court and therefore cannot be allowed to continue.
8. Thus, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against accused No.1-husband (petitioner No.1) deserves to be continued whereas the proceedings initiated against accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioner Nos.2 and 3) is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petitions are allowed in part. The proceedings initiated in Crl.Mis.164/2016 and C.C.No.874/2016 are hereby quashed only insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.2 and 3) are concerned. The proceedings against accused No.1- Sri.Taranatha (petitioner No.1), shall be continued in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV