IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3213/2016 BETWEEN:
1. VINODAMMA W/O RANAGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O AT HATTIL HALLI BECHANAHALLI POST DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 215.
2. SHAMBANNA S/O BASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O HATTIL HALLI BECHANAHALLI POST DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 215.
3. REKHAMANI @ REKHA W/O SHAMBANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O HATTIL HALLI BECHANAHALLI POST DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 215.
4. MOHANKUMARI W/O THYAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O ANGAREKHANAHALLI SAMPEIGE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 215.
5. THYAGARAJU S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O ANGAREKHANAHALLI SAMPEIGE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 215.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M R CHANDRAHASA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 079.
2. G S CHANDRAKALA W/O NAGESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O AT 4/2, NANDHINI APARTMENT, SWAYAM PRABHA KALYAN MANTAPPA ROAD, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 079 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALL, HCGP FOR R1) R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.7007/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-C) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2015 PASSED BY THE V ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.7007/2013, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED FOR SEEKING DISCHARGE U/S 239 OF THE CRPC, 1973 (ANNEXURE-D) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2016 IN CRL.R.P.NO.701/2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE (CCH-61) U/S 397 OF CRPC SEEKING DISCHARGE AND THE SAME CAME TO BE DISMISSED (ANNEXURE-E) AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED NO.3 TO 7, HEREIN THE PETR. NO.1 TO 5 IN C.C.NO.7007/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. The charge sheet is laid against the petitioners showing them as accused Nos. 2 to 7, under Sections 498(A), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been dismissed by the trial Court. The revision filed against the said order also has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except making general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners, the complaint and charge sheet does not disclose any specific overt acts insofar as the petitioners are concerned to attract the ingredients of aforesaid offences. The material relied on by the prosecution shows that none of the petitioners were residing with respondent No.2 at the material point of time. Learned Magistrate has referred to the certified copy of the previous complaint filed by the second respondent against accused No.1-husband. The said complaint was closed as it did not disclose any cognizable offence. In the said circumstance, there is no truth or substance in the allegations made against the petitioners. The accusations made in the charge sheet do not prima-facie disclose commission of offence thus seeks to quash the entire proceedings filed against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for respondent argued in support of the impugned action contending that the material produced by the prosecution prima-facie discloses the involvement of the petitioners. There are specific allegations that the petitioners also participated in the alleged offence. Hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. 2018 SCC Online SC 1080 [K. Subba Rao .vs. State of Telangana];
2. (2000)5 SCC 207 [Kans Raj .vs. State of Punjab and others]; and 3. (2014) 16 SCC 551 [Kailash Chandra Agrawal and another .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others] 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. According to the prosecution, the marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 14.11.2009. One year after the marriage, respondent No.2 is stated to have delivered a female child. According to the prosecution, on account of begetting female child she was subjected to ill treatment and harassment in the matrimonial home. Even though the charge sheet is laid for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, a reading of the charge sheet and the averments made in the complaint go to show that there was no demand for additional dowry by the petitioners herein at any point of time. On the other hand, the specific case of the prosecution is that at the time of marriage cash of Rs.1,20,000/- and 20 grams of gold chain was given to accused No.1. Though it is argued that after marriage all the petitioners herein were demanding respondent No.2 to bring Rs.2,00,000/- cash and site from her parents, the circumstances of the case indicate that after marriage only accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing together. In the earlier complaint lodged by respondent No.2, she had no grouse whatsoever against the petitioners. In the said complaint dated 10.11.2011, she had specifically stated that since about four months earlier thereto she was residing with her parents. The allegations in the said complaint were directed only against accused No.1. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the charge sheet that the petitioners herein were demanding respondent No.2 to bring cash of Rs.2 Lakhs and a site and in this regard there were frequent mediation appears to be an after thought. These allegations appear to have been made only to rope in the petitioners out of spite and malice.
7. According to the prosecution on 31.8.2012 at 3.45 while respondent No.2 was taking her child from the school, accused No.1 issued threat to her. This goes to show that as on that date respondent No.2 was not residing with the petitioners or with accused No.1.
There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were residing with respondent No.2 at any point of time. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made against the petitioners are palpably baseless and are motivated to involve the petitioners herein along with her husband namely accused No.1. In this context, it may be relevant to refer to the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent reported in (2000)5 SCC 207 [Kans Raj .vs. State of Punjab and others]wherein at paragraph 5 it is observed that:
“for the fault of the husband, the in- laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offences relating to dowry deaths”.
8. No doubt the above decision was rendered after trial, yet, in the absence of any allegation to the effect that the petitioners herein have made any specific demand for dowry and on that count they subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty and ill-treatment, the very ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are not attracted. In that view of the matter, I hold that the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal, malafide and is liable to be quashed.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The charge sheet in C.C.No.7007/2013 on the file of the V Additional Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.