IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5397/2014 BETWEEN:
1. Pampapathi, Aged about 60 years, S/o. late Chinna Ramanna, 2. Smt. Pushpavathi, W/o. Pampapathi, Aged about 55 years, Sl. Nos.1 & 2 R/at No.6/10-11, Prashanthi Nagar, Alur Road, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh – 515 801.
3. Smt. Sunitha, D/o. Pampapathi, Aged about 40 years, W/o. Chandra Shekar, 4. Smt. Rajeshwari, W/o Naveen, D/o. Pampapathi, Aged about 23 years, Sl.Nos.3 & 4 R/o Alur Road, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh – 515 801. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Syed Salman, Advocate for Sri. Younous Ali Khan, Advocate) AND:
1. State, By Ulsoor Gate Women P.S., Bengaluru.
Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Smt. C. Hemalatha, W/o. K. Bhogeshwar, Aged about 29 years, R/at No.747, III Floor, Muniyellappa Garden, Golf View Road, Kodihalli, Bengaluru – 560 004. ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri. N. Srinivas, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings pending against petitioners i.e., accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.13250/2012 of Ulsoor Gate Women P.S., Bengaluru, for the offences p/u/s 498(A) of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.13250/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Proceedings were initiated by respondent No.2 by lodging a private complaint. According to respondent No.2, she married accused No.1 on 24.06.2010 at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. After marriage, she stayed with accused No.1 only for about 5 to 6 months. The allegations made against the petitioners herein find place in para 4 of the complaint, which reads as under:
“4. The complainant submits that, the accused No.2 and 3 though stayed at Andhra Pradesh, who used to come to Bangalore and caused mental physical torture to the complainant, all the accused demanded the additional dowry amount and property, the complainant is working for A.C.S. Bangalore. The accused No.1 by causing threat and torture has forcefully been credited a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to his account. The complainant has got account in Axis Bank, the statement of accused is furnished for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, which clearly evident that, the accused No.1 has received Rs.50,000/- per month till December 2010. The said 5 months, the accused extract is Rs.2 ½ lakhs. Later i.e., since from January 2001, complainant has stopped to transfer the said amount to the account of the accused. The accused are causing torture, harassment to the complainant for the purpose of additional dowry, and also forced the complainant to transfer the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the account of the accused No.1. Accused warned that if amount not transferred will do away the life of complainant.”
3. Bare perusal of the above averments would indicate that the complainant did not reside with any one of the petitioners herein at any point of time. Even though it is alleged that accused nos.2 and 3 used to come to Bengaluru and cause mental and physical torture to the complainant, the said allegation is vague and general in nature and same cannot be reconciled with the other allegations made in the complaint. Material allegations are directed only against accused No.1. Insofar as accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned there are absolutely no allegations that they either visited complainant in her matrimonial home or caused any physical or mental cruelty to her. These circumstances therefore, clearly indicate that the complainant has roped in entire members of the family of accused No.1 out of spite and malice to wreak vengeance against accused No.1 with whom she is ill-disposed on account of serious matrimonial differences. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings pending against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.13250/2012 of Ulsoor Gate Women P.S., Bengaluru, for the offences p/u/s 498(A) of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Trial shall proceed only against accused No.1.
Sd/- JUDGE SV