Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shilpa vs State By Magadi Road Police on 23 March, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9443/2018
BETWEEN
SMT. SHILPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O. RAJKUMAR
KAWSTHUBHAM PRAYAR NORTH
PRAYER POST, ALLEPPEY
KERALA - 690 547. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BULDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. SOWMYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O. HARISH
NO.92/1, 5TH CROSS
GOPALPURA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1469/2016 ON THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU,
2
PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIME
NO.204/2015 BY THE MAGADI ROAD POLICE, BENGALURU
AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504,
498(A) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND
4 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1469/2016 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru related to the Crime No.204/2015 registered by the Magadi Road Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498 (A) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
3
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, case came to be registered by Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru, on 25.06.2015 alleging that she had married to the accused No.1, the brother of this petitioner on 08.03.2015 and prior to the marriage the accused Nos.1 to 3 and this petitioner had come to the house and demanded 300 gms of gold and Rs.3 lakhs cash, as dowry and her father had agreed to give Rs.2 lakhs of gold, accordingly on 07.02.2014 the engagement was performed. Subsequently, she married and went to the house of parents-in-law where the accused Nos.1 to 3 along with this petitioner started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. Again she further states that the accused Nos.2 and 3, parents-in-law and this petitioner did not allow her brother-accused No.1, to stay with her until she pays Rs.50 lakhs or to bring site. Again on 17.05.2015 all these accused persons demanded Rs.15 lakhs and she came to the house and informed 4 to her parents. Again on 23.05.2015 the accused persons came to the house of the complainant and informed that she requires counseling as she is suffering from psychiatric problem and returned without taking her back to the matrimonial house. Later she herself and her mother went to the house of accused persons, they did not allow her and thrown her out of the house and tried to squeeze her neck. Therefore, the panchayath also held on 07.05.2015 and 09.06.2015 and accused persons did not mend his way. Thereafter on the eve of Ashada month her parents brought her back to the husband house and thereafter accused came and thrown her out of the house. After registering the case the police investigated the matter, filed charge sheet and being aggrieved by the same petitioner/accused No.4, the sister-in-law of the complainant is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no specific allegation against this petitioner except omnibus statement made 5 against the petitioner and she is from Kerala-Alleppey. The petitioner living with her husband and son in Kerala and recently her husband went abroad and she is also preparing to go abroad. The complainant has falsely included her name which amounts to abuse of process of law. In support of his contention he relied on the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Ors in Crl.A.No.195/2020 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6545/2020 for quashing petition.
5. Per contra the learned HCGP seriously objected that there is averments made in the complaint that the accused and this petitioner also joined the mother-in-law and harassed the complainant and there is sufficient material placed on record to frame the charges.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of records, ofcourse it is admitted fact that she is married to accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are 6 parents-in-law and this petitioners is sister-in-law of the complainant. The learned counsel submits the petitioner was residing in Alleppey in Kerala along with her husband and son. However, the learned counsel also submits as her husband is in abroad now it is not acceptable that she was alone in Kerala and did not come to the house of the parents. However, the arguments made against accused No.1 who is husband and the accused No.2 were parents-in-law that they demanded dowry of Rs.3 lakhs and had agreed to receive Rs.2 lakhs apart from receiving 200 gms of gold, after having demanded 300 gms. Subsequently they also demanded Rs.15 lakhs or a site in the name of the accused No.1. The complainant has struggled regular harassment in the hands of the accused persons and also the accused taken defense that she is suffering from psychological problems therefore they want to take her to psychiatrist but she refused to go. Subsequently they went to the house of the accused Nos.1 and 3 where they have not 7 allowed her and said to be thrown out of the house, the complainant and her mother. The submission of the mother of the complainant is also recorded. The statement of mother also recorded.
7. On perusal of statement of the complainant ofcourse there is specific allegation made against the accused Nos.1 to 3. However in the entire complaint the name of this petitioner is added as accused No.4 and specifically there is no averments against this petitioner for having committed any harassment for the complainant individually or abating the other accused to commit any such offences, the allegation against the other accused attracts the offence under Sections 323 and 498A of abusing her in filthy language and harassment. There is no specific averments against accused. The allegation made against this petitioner does not fall under any offences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kahskashan Kausa @ Sonam & Ors stated supra has held as under (in para 18):
8
" 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."
8. Admittedly, the entire statement of the victim complainant is against accused No.1 and her parents- in-law and her statement is omnibus statement stating that the present petitioner is also present and committed offence along with accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore it cannot be acceptable that this petitioner also harassed the complainant physically and mentally and demanded any dowry or additional dowry. Therefore conducting trial against this petitioner will 9 be abuse of process of law. Hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
This petition is allowed.
The Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.1469/2016 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in the Crime No.204/2015 registered by the Magadi Road Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498 (A) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act., is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV