IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8004 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. V. GUNAVATHI W/O M. SHEKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2. SRI. M. SHEKAR S/O SRI KORANGARI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT SRI. RAMA NILAYA NO.D-4, K T 826, 11TH CROSS K. E. B COLONY CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA MANDYA – 571 401.
3. SMT. SREELATHA W/O SRI CHIDANADA J AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
4. SRI. CHIDANANDA J S/O SRI. JAGANATHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
PETITIONER NOS. 3 & 4 ARE R/AT NO.134/5, MOUNTAIN SHADOW AZARA, GOUHATI-17 ASSAM STATE. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C. R. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE BENGALURU, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT. PRAMILA V W/O SRI RAJARAM S AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, C/O SRI. K. VITTAL SHETTY NO.22/3, VASANTHPURA ROAD KONANKUNTE CROSS KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 062.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.06.2015 PASSED IN C.C.No. 14456/2015 (CRIME No.101/2015 OF SUBRAHMANYAPURA POLICE STATION), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M. BENGALURU SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, HAVING BEEN INITIATED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A OF I.P.C. AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are shown as accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 in the chargesheet filed under section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners’ contended that the allegations contained in the charge sheet do not make out the ingredients of any of alleged offences insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Except making bald and general allegations in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, the complainant or the prosecution has not cited any specific instances of dowry demand or cruelty by any one of the petitioners. On the other hand, material on record indicates that accused Nos.4 and 5 are permanent residents of Guwahati. The material produced by the investigating agency does not disclose that the petitioners were residing in the matrimonial home of respondent No.2 at any point of time which indicates that the entire family members of accused No.1 have been roped in out of spite and vengeance and thus seeks to quash the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has disputed the submissions and drawing attention to the averments made in the complaint as well as to the material collected by the investigating agency would submit that the complainant has poignantly narrated the sequence of events which disclose that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. There are specific allegations of dowry demand and in the wake of these allegations, there is no reason to quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioners.
4. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1- State has also argued in support of the impugned action and has sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. On going through the material on record, I find that serious charges are levelled against accused Nos.1 to 3 making out the ingredients under section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, insofar as petitioner Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, the charge sheet does not contain any material to show their complicity in the alleged offences. There is nothing on record to show that during the stay of respondent No.2 in the matrimonial home, petitioner Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.4 and 5 stayed with her at any point of time. In the absence of any such material, prosecution of accused Nos.4 and 5 for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court. Therefore, considering the above facts, in my view, petition deserves to be allowed insofar as petitioner Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part.
i. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed.
ii. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.4 and 5 is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.14456/2015 on the file of learned II Addl. CMM, Bengaluru are quashed only insofar as the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 viz., accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The trial shall proceed against accused Nos.1 to 3 in accordance with law.
Liberty is reserved to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to seek their discharge before the trial court on such grounds available under law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-