IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6947/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUVARNAMMA T D W/O HANUMANTHAPPA.K AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BHUTHANAGUDI GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI PRESENT ADDRESS NO.2, CHIKKAKOGALURU CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
2. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA.K S/O ALTE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BHUTHANAGUDI, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI PRESENT ADDRESS NO.2, CHIKKAGALURU HANNAGIRI ALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552 3. SMT. KAVYA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BHUTHANAGUDI, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI PRESENT ADDRESS IUDP LAYOUT, 11TH CROSS, "SAMRUDDHI NILAYA"
CHITRADURGA-577501 (BY SRI VENKATESHA T. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
…PETITIONERS 1. STATE BY, BHADRAVATHI. P.S REPRESETED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. USHA T W/O MANUJUNATHA H.S AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS TATTE HALLI CAMP BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 233 (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP. FOR R1 SRI DHANUSH K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.281/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, INSOFAR IT RELATES TO PETITIONERS ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.281/2016, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the sister- in-law of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against her husband and petitioners herein, alleging that at the time of marriage, the petitioners demanded and received dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- and two tolas of gold and even thereafter, she was subjected to ill- treatment and harassment in her matrimonial house demanding additional dowry. Further, she has stated that when she was at her work place, accused Nos.1 to 4 came there and forced her to change the nomination in the name of her husband (accused No.1) in the service records. Since she refused for the same, accused persons abused and threatened her. According to the complainant, in this regard, a panchayath was convened and thereafter, she went to live in her matrimonial house. Even thereafter, the ill-treatment and harassment continued and hence, there was another panchayath in the upstairs of Keerthi Bhavan Hotel, Bhadravathi. It is further alleged that on 08.10.2014, during the naming ceremony of the child, there was a quarrel and demand for additional dowry.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague. Respondent No.2 has not cited any specific instance of cruelty or ill-treatment. All the family members of her husband are implicated on account of her differences with accused No.1. Accused No.4 is a married lady. She did not reside with the complainant and accused No.1 at any point of time, therefore, there was no occasion for accused No.4 to subject the complainant to ill-treatment or harassment as contended in the charge sheet. Placing reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and Another Vs. Bharti reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950, at para No.5, learned counsel would contend that the complainant does not specify the instance or particular offence. She has not stated which accused has committed what offence. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played in committing the offence. In the instant case, such particulars are lacking in the complaint and in the statement of the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and an abuse of the process of Court.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued in support of the charges contending that prima facie material is collected by the investigating agency in proof of each and every accusation made against the petitioners. The complainant has narrated specific instance of cruelty meted out to her. Her statement is corroborated by other witnesses. Therefore, ample evidence is available to substantiate the charges and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings at this stage.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the charge sheet and the documents filed along with the petition. Insofar as the allegations of dowry demand are concerned, the said allegations are mainly directed against accused Nos.1 and 3. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that on the account of demand made by accused persons for dowry, the father of the complainant was forced to borrow money from one Ramaiah on executing a bond on a stamp paper for a sum of Rs.200/-, and the said amount was paid in the hands of accused Nos.1 and 3. These allegations do not apply to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 4).
7. According to the complainant, the alleged cruelty was meted out to her in the matrimonial house. Undisputedly, accused No.4 was residing along with her husband. According to the complainant herself, she was working in Gokak and the petitioners had come to her work place. These averments go to show that the complainant was not residing with the petitioners. The only allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 4 is that, they came along with accused Nos.1 and 3 to Gokak, to her work place and forced her to change the nominee in the name of accused No.1. It is not the case of the complainant that yielding to the said demand she had changed the nominee, rather, the case of the complainant is that, she declined the demand made by the accused persons and even in that regard there was a panchayath.
These allegations, therefore do not amount to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. According to the complainant, the said incident has taken place in the school where she was working as a teacher. None of her colleagues are cited as witnesses in support of this incident. Therefore, solely on the basis of the above allegations petitioner Nos.1 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 4) cannot be sent up for trial for the above accusation.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. The proceedings in C.C.No.281/2016, on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., *Bhadravathi are quashed insofar as accused Nos.2 (Smt. Suvarnamma T.D.) and 4 (Smt. Kavya) are concerned. The trial shall proceed only against accused Nos.1 and 3 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj *Corrected vide Court Order dated 26.02.2019