IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4956/2017 BETWEEN:
1. UMESH B K SON OF KRISHNAMURTHY K AGED 40 YEARS, KRISHNA NILAYA, NO.272, I CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560020 2. K. KRISHNAMURTHY SON OF LATE MAISTRY KEMPAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS 3. SMT. B.K.LAKSHMI W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 65 YEARS 4. SMT. VINITHA D/O K.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 36 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4/1-1, 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560003. …PETITIONERS (BY Sri. IAN LEWIS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR ROAD, MARUTHI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 097 2. SMT. SMITHA R WIFE OF UMESH B K AGED 35 YEARS, NO.2367, C BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560092 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI K. SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE FIR NO.66/2017 DATED 20.3.2017 REGISTERED BY THE KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION UNDER THE ORIGINAL OF ANNEXURE-B NOW ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY.
2) QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.3.2017 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE ORIGINAL OF ANNEXURE-A BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT-POLICE ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned advocates for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri.Ian Lewis, learned advocate for the petitioners, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State and Sri.K.Suman, learned advocate for Respondent No.2.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners has filed a memo stating that he does not press the petition qua the Accused-Petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned.
4. Sri.Ian Lewis submits that the complainant initially filed a complaint on 20th June 2016 in Kodigehalli Police Station alleging that her husband had gone to his in-laws’ house and abused her and a blanket statement has been made in the said complaint so far as the Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are concerned. There are no specific allegations against the said petitioners in the complaint dated 20th June 2016. Subsequently, complainant filed another complaint on 20th March 2017 which has been registered as F.I.R No.66/2017 in Kodigehalli Police Station. In the said complaint, the complainant has alleged harassment and ‘demand’ for dowry.
5. Sri.Ian Lewis argued that if the facts stated in complaint dated 20th June 2016 are considered, at least, as on that date, there were no allegations so far as Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are concerned. A reading of the second complaint in its entirety also does not disclose any specific overt acts so far as petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are concerned.
6. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are parents-in-law of the complainant. They are aged 70 and 65 years respectively. Petitioner No.4 is sister of First Petitioner.
With these submissions, Sri.Lewis prays that this petition may be allowed.
7. Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP argued in support of the prosecution.
8. Sri.K.Suman, learned advocate for the complainant submits that the complaint dated 20th March 2017 is a comprehensive one in which allegations are contained against Petitioners No.2 to 4 also. Accordingly, he prays that this petition be dismissed.
9. Admittedly, the first complaint is filed on 20th June 2016. Except stating that her husband was instigated by Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4, there is no allegation against them in the first complaint. No doubt, the second complaint contains certain allegations. Keeping in view the date of the first complaint, the allegations made in the second complaint will have to be considered.
10. It was submitted by Sri.Ian Lewis, learned advocate for the petitioners that from and after the first complaint filed on 20th June 2016, complainant has not been staying with her husband. The said statement is not disputed by the learned advocate for the complainant. Admittedly, allegations against the Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 contained in the second complaint do not find place in the earlier complaint. Thus, the learned advocate for the petitioners is right in his submission that there has been improvement in the case of complainant and Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 have been falsely implicated. In the circumstances, keeping in view the age of second and third petitioners and also keeping in view the fact that the first complaint did not contain any allegations against Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 and as there has been clear improvement in the second complaint, the prosecution against Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 amounts to abuse of process of law.
11. Hence, the following ORDER i) Petition is dismissed so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned.
ii) Petition is allowed-in-part and all the proceedings in F.I.R.No.66/2017 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru city, are quashed so far as petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are concerned.
iii) In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.No.2/2017 also stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv* ch.yn.