Karnataka High Court
Narendra Kumar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 2 July, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506
CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201725 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. NARENDRA KUMAR
S/O SUBBANNA K.,
AGE: 72 YEARS
OCC: RETIRED SBI MANAGER,
R/O. WARD NO.16,
VISHWANATHAPURAM COLONY,
BELLARY-583 101.
2. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O K. NARENDRA KUMAR
AGE: 67 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. WARD NO.16
VISHWANATHAPURAM COLONY,
Digitally BELLARY-583 101.
signed by
SHILPA R
TENIHALLI
Location: 3. SMT. VARALAKSHMI
HIGH
COURT OF W/O K. PARASHURAMUDU
KARNATAKA
AGE: 47 YEARS.
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOUSE NO.36,
WARD NO. 23,
DOBHI STREET,
COWL BAZAR,
BELLARY-583 101.
4. SMT. TULASI
W/O DHARENDRA KUMAR N,
AGE: 47 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506
CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. WARD NO.23
RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAR,
BELLARY-583 102.
5. SMT. RAJANI
W/O MOHAMMED SIRAZ
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE (NON PRACTITIONER)
R/O. WARD NO 30, KUVEMPU NAGAR,
1ST CROSS, 1ST RIGHT,
BELLARY-583 104.
6. ANITHA D/O K. NARENDRA KUMAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE (DIVORCEE)
R/O. WARD NO.16,
VISHWANATHAPURAM COLONY,
BELLARY-583 101.
7. MADHUMOHANA KUMAR
S/O K. NARENDRA KUMAR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. WARD NO. 16
VISHWANATHAPURAM COLONY,
BELLARY-583 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH YELI, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P3 TO P7
V/O. DATED 27.03.2024 PETITION AS AGAINST
P2 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAICHUR WOMEN POLICE
REPTD. BY ADDL.
SATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURAGI.
2. SHRUTHI W/O HARISH KUMAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506
CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023
AGE: 28 YEARS
R/O. VISHWANATHAPURAM BELLARY
NOW RESIDING AT
HOUSE NO. 1-3-1354-ID/73,
SAIPRIYA COLONY,
ASHAPUR ROAD, RAICHUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI AVINASH A. UPLOANKAR AND
SRI RAVI K. ANOOR, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.77/2023 ON THE FILE
OF RAICHUR WOMEN POLICE STATION U/S.498A, 323, 506,
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF THE D.P.
ACT, 1961 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused Nos.2 to 8 are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.77/2023 registered by Raichur Women Police Station, Raichur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506 CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the near relatives of accused No.1 and after the relationship between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 herein got strained, a false complaint has been filed implicating the petitioners as accused only to harass and coerce them. He submits that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 herein are already before the jurisdictional Family Court and therefore, proceedings as against the petitioners may be quashed. He also submits that the petitioners are all residing separately and they are not residing along with accused No.1. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that within a period of one month from the date of marriage of respondent No.2 with -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506 CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023 accused No.1, the respondent No.2 was thrown out of her matrimonial House. The petitioners herein and accused No.1 were torturing and harassing respondent No.2, in furtherance of their demand for additional dowry. Petitioners herein had not allowed the second respondent to lead a normal life with accused No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that having thrown out respondent No.2, accused No.1 had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a hurried manner only to avoid payment of maintenance amount to respondent No.2. He submits that second respondent's family is a middle class family, whereas the accused persons belong to rich family. The marriage reception was held in a 5 star hotel, though, respondent No.2 and her family members were not willing. He also submits that the investigation in the case is under progress and at this stage, if, there is any interference by this Court, respondent No.2 will be put to untold hardship.
5. FIR in the present case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506 CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023 with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Offence punishable under Section 498A is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence. Section 498A of IPC reads as follows:
Section-498A-"Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.1
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
The word cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A of IPC is defined in the explanation given to Section 498A.
6. In the first information it is specifically averred that all the accused persons were ill-treating and torturing the first informant. The material on record would go to show that even before expiry of one month from the date of marriage, the first informant was thrown out of the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506 CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023 matrimonial house. It is her specific allegation that the petitioners herein had prevented her from leading a normal married life with her husband. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A of IPC can be either physical and mental. For the purpose of causing mental harassment or cruelty, the presence of the accused in person may not be necessary. The adverse effect on the mental health of the victim on account of the act committed by the accused persons would also amount to cruelty for the purpose of invoking Section 498A of IPC. In the case of B.S.Joshi And Others v/s State of Hariyana and Another reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 498A of IPC was introduced with a view to punish the husband and his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy their unlawful demand of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506 CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023
7. The objective behind introducing Section 498A of IPC cannot be lost site of by the Courts, while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, the first informant, who is aged about 23 years, allegedly was thrown out of her matrimonial house within a period of one month from the date of her marriage and inspite of multiple Panchayats held, the dispute between the parties could not be settled.
8. It is trite that whenever an FIR is registered for cognizable offence, the investigation officer gets a right to investigate the matter. In normal circumstances, there should not be any interference with the investigation by the Courts. It is only, if this Court is fully satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated against accused is a clear case of abuse of process of law and the allegations found against them, even if presumed to be true, they do not attract the alleged offences, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised, this Court can interfere with investigation of the criminal case registered for cognizable offence. Law in this regard has been laid -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506 CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited V/s State Of Maharashtra And Others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 and Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited V/s. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 795. In the case of G.V.Siddaramesh V/s State Of Karnataka reported in reported in 2010 3 SCC 152 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that cruelty can either by mental or physical. It is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means of a definition, because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes as cruelty to one person may not constitute cruelty for another person. In the case of Gananath Pattnaik V/s State of Orissa reported in 2002 2 SCC 619, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cruelty and its effects varies from individual to individual also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. needs to be exercised when it is prima facie found that the impugned criminal proceedings is initiated with oblique
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4506 CRL.P No. 201725 of 2023 motive or when it is found that initiation of impugned criminal proceedings is a clear case of abuse of process of law. In the case on hand, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no material on record so as to register FIR against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences. The allegations made in the first information contain necessary ingredients, so as to invoke the alleged offences against all the accused persons. Under the circumstances, the minimum that is required is an investigation by the police to verify the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by respondent No.2 against accused persons. The Criminal Procedure Code provides efficacious remedy to the accused persons, in the event they are wrongly charge sheeted. Therefore, at this stage, reliefs sought for in this petition cannot be granted.
9. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SRT/NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41