IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5532 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. Venkteshwara Rao, S/o. Bhuloka D., Aged about 40 years, Occu: Contractor 2. Smt. Narasamma, W/o. Bhuloka D., Aged about 62 years, 3. Bhuloka D, S/o late Tathaiah, Aged about 73 years, Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are R/o No.488, Shivashankar Block, 3rd Cross, Hebbal, Bengaluru – 560 024.
4. Smt. Rathna, W/o Tata Rao, Aged about 50 years.
5. Tata Rao S/o late Appanna, Aged about 51 years, Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are R/o No.117, Shanthi Nilaya, Subhasnagar, K.S. Town, Bengaluru – 560 060.
6. Smt. Padma, W/o Ramesh, Aged about 38 years, 7. Ramesh, S/o late Kuppaswamy Naidu, Aged about 39 years, Petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are R/o No.11, Ganapathinagar, Acharya College Road, Chikkabanavara Post, Bengaluru – 560 090.
8. Smt. Radha, W/o Venkataramana, Aged about 43 years, 9. Ramana, S/o late Maseniah, Aged about 45 years, Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 are R/o No.16, Guniagrahara Layout, Somashettahalli Main Road, Laxmipura, Bengaluru – 560 089.
(By Sri. A.K. Dhiraj, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru.
…Petitioners 2. Smt. Pushpa, W/o Venkateshwara Rao, Aged about 32 years, R/o No.488, 3rd Cross, Shivashankar Block, Hebbal, Bengaluru – 560 024.
...Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1;
Smt. Sunitha H. Singh, Advocate for R2 [absent]) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.132/2013 of Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 506, 34, 498(A), 504 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.132/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws and petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 8 are the sisters-in-law and petitioner Nos.5, 7 and 9 are the husbands of respective petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 8. Alleging that all these petitioners were causing cruelty and harassment to respondent No.2, she has sought prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences.
3. According to respondent No.2, her marriage was performed with petitioner No.1 on 12.05.2000. In their wedlock she has begotten three children, in the year 2002, 2004 and 2006. In the complaint it is stated that at the instance of her husband/accused No.1, she had pledged her gold ornaments and had given Rs.3,50,000/- to accused No.1.
4. Even though it is alleged in the complaint that all the petitioners herein tried to kill respondent No.2 by pouring keresone oil on her body, the said allegation is not substantiated with any cogent material. The complainant has not disclosed the date and time of the alleged incident. There is no supporting material to show as to when the alleged incident had taken place. On the other hand, in the petition filed by her before the MMTC, IV Court at Bengaluru, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, she has made similar allegations against all the petitioners herein without specifying as to the date of commission of the said offence and no witnesses have been cited in support thereof making it evident that the allegation is made only to bolster up the charges foisted against the petitioners.
5. A reading of the complaint and the material produced before this Court indicate that only respondent No.2 and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were residing in the matrimonial house and petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 8 being the married sisters of accused No.1 have been residing separately with their husband namely petitioner Nos.5, 7 and 9. In the absence of any specific allegations with regard to the involvement of these petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence, in my view, prosecution of the petitioner Nos.4 to 9 for the above offences is wholly illegal.
6. Petitioner Nos.4 to 9 have produced copies of the Ration Card and Election Identity Card, which disclose that the petitioners are residing separately. There are no allegations whatsoever in the entire complaint that at any point of time petitioner Nos.4 to 9 resided with respondent No.2 and her husband. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that prosecution of the petitioner Nos.4 to 9 for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court. To this extent petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 is dismissed. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.4 to 9/accused Nos.4 and 9 is allowed. FIR registered in Crime No.132/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and consequent proceedings arising there from insofar as petitioner Nos.4 to 9 / accused Nos.4 to 9 are concerned is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV