Karnataka High Court
Sri Abishek vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3758/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Abishek
S/o. Sri. C. R. Ananda,
Aged about 29 years.
2. Sri. C. R.Ananda,
S/o. Ramachandraiah,
Aged about 58 years.
3. Smt. D. Hemalatha,
W/o. C.R. Ananda,
Aged about 50 years.
All are Residing at No.173,
Flat No.302, Elegancy Lalbagh View,
Siddapura, Jayanagar I Block,
Bangalore-560 011. ... Petitioners
(By Smt. S. Kanchan for
M/s. N.Vishwanath & Associates, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Indiranagar Police Station,
Bangaloe-560 038.
2. Smt.Rashmi Raj,
W/o.Abishek,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No.52/1,
2
Appa Reddy Palya,
Thimma Reddy Road,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore-560 038. ... Respondents
(By Sri.K.Dilip Kumar HCGP for R-1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings initiated in
C.C.No.22211/2013 on the file of the X Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in so far as the petitioner
is concerned registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
This Criminal Petition coming for Admission on this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No.22211/2013 on the file of the X -ACMM, Bangalore, have sought for quashing the prosecution launched against them in the aforesaid case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short "D.P. Act").
2) The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the parents of the 1st 3 petitioner. The 2nd respondent lodged a report on 15.11.2012 before the officer-in-charge of Indiranagar Police Station, Bangalore, inter alia alleging that, at the time of her marriage with the 1st petitioner, the petitioners demanded and accepted dowry both in cash and kind and that subsequently, while she was staying with them, all of them subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, and also threatened her with injury to her life. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the case in Crime No.454/2012, took-up investigation and on completion of the investigation, have laid charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
3) The learned Magistrate, before whom the charge sheet was laid, took cognizance of the offences alleged and ordered issue of summons to the petitioners. On coming to know of the same, the petitioners have presented this petition.
4) Quashing of the prosecution is sought inter alia on the grounds that the 2nd respondent lodged the 4 complaint after the 1st petitioner filed petition for divorce before the competent court to make-out plausible defence in the said proceedings; that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet do not constitute any of the offences alleged; that the allegations made therein are all false and frivolous; that even as on the date of filing of the First Information Report before the police, the 2nd respondent was living separately from her husband, therefore, there was no occasion for any of the petitioners to subject the informant to any kind of cruelty or harassment; that the accusations made in the charge sheet are all baseless and that the prosecution launched against them is only with a view to harass them and to coerce them to come to her terms.
5) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the copies of the charge sheet papers produced, I find no justifiable grounds to entertain this petition. May be that the 2nd respondent lodged the FIR before the jurisdictional police subsequent to the 1st petitioner filing divorce petition before the Civil Court 5 However, that fact alone cannot be a ground for this court to quash the prosecution in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. All other contentions urged in support of the prayer made in this petition are in the nature of defence pleas, which are required to be substantiated at the trial. The veracity of those contentions are required to be considered by the trial court after a full-fledged trial. This Court in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot undertake the exercise of evaluating the evidence and recording a finding thereon, since such exercise is required to be undertaken by the trial court. Under these circumstances, I find no ground to entertain this petition. However, it is open to the petitioners to urge all these contentions before the trial court and seek appropriate relief at the hands of the trial court. In this view of the matter, the petition is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE KGR*