Karnataka High Court
Vinay Narayana Pandith vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9069 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. Vinay Narayana Pandith
S/o Narayana Pandith
Aged about 34 years
Residing at No.1379
24th Main Road
Banashankari II Stage
Bangalore - 560 070.
2. Dr. Padmarajamma
D/o Venkataramachar
Aged about 72 years
Residing at No.1379
24th Main Road
Banashankari II Stage
Bangalore - 560 070.
3. Smt. Rukminiamma
@ Rukmiuni Devi
Aged about 60 years
Residing at No.1379
24th Main Road
Banashankari II Stage
Bangalore - 560 070.
4. Chethan
S/o Rudresh
2
Aged about 31 years
Residing at No.8/45/17
17th Main, Muneshwara Block
Sri Nagar
Bangalore - 560 050.
5. Smt. Devi
W/o Murugesh
Aged about 38 years
Residing at No.12
15th 'A' Cross, 8th Main
Banashankari II Stage
Bangalore - 560 070.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Hashmath Pasha - Senior Advocate a/w
Sri Kaleem Sabir - Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Banashankari Police Station
Bangalore - 560 070
(by learned State Public Prosecutor).
2. Dr. Bhavya Priyanka
W/o Vinay Narayan Pandith
D/o C Bhanu Murthy
Aged about 28 years
Residing at No.1
Behind Old Police Station
Konanakunte
Kanakapura Road
Bangalore - 560 062.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Mahesh Shetty - HCGP for R-1;
Sri Nityanand V Naik - Advocate for R-2 )
3
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.20182/2016
on the file of III ACMM, Bangalore which is arising out of
Cr.No.77/2016 of Banashankari Police Station, Bangalore for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and under
Sections 3 and 4 of DP. Act, as an abuse of process of law.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1. Perused the record.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the charge-sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Petitioner No.1 - Accused No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2 / complainant and petitioners 2 and 3 are the maternal aunts of Accused No.1. Accused No.4 is an employee 4 working in the clinic of Accused No.1 and Accused No.5 is a person known to the family of Accused No.1.
4. Respondent No.2 married Accused No.1 on 8.11.2015. She lodged a complaint against the above accused persons on 23.03.2016 alleging that after the marriage, she was ill-treated and harassed in the matrimonial home. It was alleged that at the time of engagement, Respondent No.2 was forced to change her name. After her marriage, Accused Nos.2 and 3 did not allow the marriage to consummate as they put a condition that unless Respondent No.2 was able to establish a balanced relationship with them, they would not allow Respondent No.2 to consummate the marriage. It is further alleged that as and when Accused Nos.4 and 5 were coming to the house of Accused No.1, at the instance of Accused Nos.2 and 3, they used to abuse and assault the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was filed only after service of the notice issued by Accused No.1 for dissolution of the marriage in M.C.No.102/2016. The allegations made in the complaint do not 5 make out the ingredients of the alleged offences. Respondent No.2 hardly stayed in the matrimonial home. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are not the members of the family of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 and as such, the charge under Section 498A cannot stand against Accused Nos.4 and 5. There are no allegations whatsoever against Accused Nos.2 and 3 attracting the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Under the said circumstances, the prosecution launched against the petitioners is wholly illegal and an abuse of the process of court.
6. Learned HCGP however argued in support of the impugned proceedings contending that the material produced along with the charge-sheet prima facie disclose the commission of offences by the petitioners and therefore, there is no reason to quash the impugned proceedings.
7. A reading of the averments made in the charge-sheet reveals that Respondent No.2 stayed in the matrimonial home hardly for ten days. According to the second respondent, the marriage itself was not consummated. The very fact that she has come up with general and omnibus allegations against the 6 petitioners, that too after service of notice in the matrimonial proceedings indicates that the allegations are concocted and created only to foist a false case against the petitioners. The second respondent has not narrated any specific instance of cruelty attracting the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC or 506 of IPC. In order to constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A, the victim should be subjected to cruelty as defined under the said section. The evidence on record does not satisfy the requirements of Section 498A or 506 of IPC. The allegations regarding the demand and payment of dowry is directed only against Accused No.1. There is no material whatsoever to show that Accused Nos.2 and 3 either demanded any dowry from Respondent No.2 or that any portion of the dowry amount was paid into their hands. On the other hand, the allegation against the petitioners 2 and 3 / accused Nos.2 and 3 are that they did not allow Respondent No.2 to consummate the marriage with Accused No.1 There is no material to substantiate this allegation. The circumstances narrated in the complaint go to show that within ten days after the marriage, Accused No.1 himself had left to Delhi. There is nothing on record to show 7 that thereafter Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 lived together as husband and wife. Under the said circumstances, Accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be held responsible for non- consummation of the marriage of the second respondent. Further, Accused Nos.4 and 5 not being members of the family of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1, the charge under Section 498A cannot be sustained against Accused Nos.4 and 5.
8. Thus, taking into consideration the entire gamut of the allegations made in the complaint, in my view, the material on record is not sufficient to make out prima facie the ingredients of the offences in so far as Accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. However, in so far as Accused No.1 is concerned, the material on record is sufficient to make out the ingredients of the above offences. Hence, the following order:
Petition is allowed in part. Petition filed by Petitioner No.1
- Accused No.1 is dismissed. The petition filed by Petitioners 2 to 5 - Accused Nos.2 to 5 is allowed. The proceedings initiated in C.C.No.20182/2016 on the file of III ACMM, Bangalore are quashed in so far as Accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. The 8 Trial Court shall proceed only against Accused No.1 - Vinay Narayana Pandith, in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE KS