IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1503/2014 BETWEEN :
Smt. Vidya Rani D/o B.K. Shekar Aged about 26 years Presently r/at C/o Prajna Counseling Center Mahalakshmi Complex, Jeppina Mogeru Mangalore-575 009.
… Petitioner (By Sri K. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate) AND :
1. State of Karnataka Represented by PSI of Women Police Station Mangalore City-575 001.
2. Smt. Rajani Rao W/o Murulidhar Rao Aged about 33 years C/o Loknath Kotiyan Kodikal, Ashoka Nagar Mangalore-575 004.
… Respondents (By Sri H.S. Chandramouli, SPP-I for R1; Sri P.P. Hegde, Advocate for R2-(Absent)) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order of taking cognizance and registering of case dated 31.08.2012 passed by the JMFC (III Court), Mangalore in Crime No.8/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 police against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 504, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for final hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by the JMFC III Court, Mangaluru, by which the cognizance has been taken and the case has been registered in Crime No.8/2012 as against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for the first respondent- State. Though respondent No.2 is represented by a counsel, she has remained absent and has not canvassed any arguments.
3. Before going to consider the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I deem it just and proper to state the facts of the case in brief. The complainant filed the complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1-Muralidhara Rao on 27.11.1999 and after the marriage she led matrimonial life with accused No.1 in a rented house. It is further alleged that accused No.1 used to harass the complainant for demand of dowry and also used to abuse her by saying that she has brought less gold jewelries at the time of their marriage. It is further alleged that accused No.1 never used to give any amount for the maintenance of the house and he is having an illicit relationship with accused No.2 and he is going to marry her. It is further alleged that accused No.2 used to call over the phone and abuse the complainant in filthy language. She also used to give life threat to her. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.8/2012 (CC.No.2316/2012). Challenging the same accused No.2 is before this Court in this petition.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case has taken cognizance and registered the case. He submitted that accused No.2 is in no way related either to the complainant or accused No.1 and as such the provisions of Section 498A are not attracted. He further submitted that even the provisions of the other Sections are also not applicable and as such he prays to quash the order dated 31.8.2012.
5. Per contra, the learned SPP appearing for the first respondent-State vehemently argued and submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 are having illicit relationship and even they have ill-treated and harassed the complainant. Accused No.1 has demanded for dowry and even accused No.2 by calling over the phone of the complainant has threatened her with life and abused her in filthy language and as such there is ample material to take cognizance as against accused No.2. He further submitted that accused No.2 is the main cause for causing mental agony and ill-treatment by accused No.1 as against the complainant. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. On going through a copy of the complaint filed along with the petition and the charge sheet material, it would indicate that accused No.2 is in no way related either with accused No.1 or the complainant. It is specifically stated by the complainant herself that accused No.1 is having illicit relationship with accused No.2 and he is going to marry her, which itself clearly goes to show that provisions of Section 498A of IPC are not attracted as against accused No.2, the present petitioner. But as could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other material, there is ample material to show that there are ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC as against accused No.2. Under such circumstances, the trial Court is justified in taking cognizance as against accused No.2-petitioner herein under the said provisions. Under such circumstances, taking of cognizance by the trial Court as against accused No.2-petitioner herein under the provisions of Section 498A of IPC is not sustainable in law and hence, the same is quashed.
7. In so far as taking of cognizance by the trial Court as against accused No.2-petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC is concerned, it is open for the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.
Accordingly, petition is partly allowed.
Since the matter is of the year 2012, the trial Court is expedite the matter as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-