Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 31 July, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493
CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201863 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHAVENDRA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGADI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: LAB TECHNICIAN,
2. SMT. GEETHA BAI W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGADI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BOTH THE PETITIONERS,
RESIDENCE OF 685, AVATI ONI,
Digitally signed by TALIKOTI, TQ. TALIKOTI,
KHAJAAMEEN L DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586214.
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONERS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SHO.,
LINGASUGURU PS., DIST. RAICHUR
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493
CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023
2. SMT. ARUNA W/O RAGHAVENDRA AGADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT TALIKOTI
NOW R/O NEAR NAGARESHWAR TEMPLE,
LINGASUGUR, TQ. LINGASUGURU,
DIST. RAICHUR-584122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY
THE QUASH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO.314/2019 (ARISING OUT OF LINGASUGUR PS. CRIME
NO.407/2018) BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT,
LINGASUGUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A,
323, 355, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, PURSUANT TO THE
FILING OF THE CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THEM PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493
CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused Nos.1 and 2 for quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.314/2019 arising out of Crime No.407/2018 of Lingasgur Police Station and charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 355, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
02. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State. The respondent No.2 served with the notice, but unrepresented.
03. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 has filed the complaint on 16.11.2018 alleging that the respondent No.2 was married with the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023 petitioner No.1 on 20.02.2014 at Nagareshwar Temple, at Lingasgur as per the Hindu Customs. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent No.2 was second marriage. They had a son by name Amit through his first marriage and his wife was already dead. Hence, he had a second marriage with the respondent No.2. At the time of marriage 10 tolas of gold and 01 kg silver articles were given. Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioners demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of expanding his Laboratory business. There was continuous harassment to the respondent No.2. Earlier they are residing altogether with the brothers of the petitioner No.1 and mother. Thereafter, they are separated after 02 years of the marriage. He had insisting for giving consent for another marriage with Meena. He kept the said Meena in a rented house. After advise of the petitioner No.1's brother, he sent out the said Meena from the rented house. He has not maintained the respondent No.2 properly. For some time, the petitioners No.1 and 2 along with the child were resided with the respondent No.2. Later the accused No.1 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023 came and took the accused No.2, his son and went out by deserting her. Then she was decided to stay with her parents. She has also stated that the petitioner No.1 by showing the wrong address, obtained the divorce decree from the Family Court. On 15.11.2018, both the accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the brother of the accused No.1 assaulted her by insisting for consent divorce. Hence, he has filed the complaint.
04. After registering the FIR, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet, which is challenged by the petitioners No.1 and 2 before this Court.
05. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no demand of dowry either even prior to the marriage or after the marriage. The allegation is only that he had demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- for expanding his business which she was not given. The marriage was held between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 with an understanding that she should -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023 have look after his son who was born to his first wife, but she has not maintain properly. Therefore, there was a dispute between them. She herself had left the house and filed the maintenance petition by claiming the maintenance. There was no averments or allegations that he had intimacy with one Meena. It was also contended that the petitioner No.1 had also filed the divorce petition on the ground of non-consummation of the marriage. She has appeared through her advocate, but not resisted and contested the case and divorce decree was obtained on 15.12.2022 in M.C.No.51/2017. The respondent No.2 has also filed the maintenance petition in the year 2018. At the same time, this complaint has also filed in the year 2018 only for harassing the petitioners. The divorce was granted after two years. But she was residing separately from the year 2016 onwards and no complaint was filed. She was claiming the maintenance without any other allegations, except for maintenance. Therefore, no purpose will serve in conducting the trial. The allegations are very vague and they do not attract the ingredients of Section 498(A) of IPC. Hence, prayed to quash the criminal proceedings. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023
06. The learned High Court Government Pleader objected the claim petition contending that the accused insisting for third marriage with one Meena. He had brought the said Meena and kept in a rented house and sent her back. The petitioners used to assault her in filthy language. There are ingredients to attract Section 498(A) of IPC and other offences. The matter is required for trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
07. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent No.2 was the second marriage as he had a son by name Ameet from his first wife who was died prior to his second marriage. It is also stated that with the understanding that she should look after the first wife's son and the petitioner No.1. There is a quarrel in between them while they were staying together with the in-laws' house by the respondent No.2. After the marriage of 02 years, they used to reside separately. It is alleged that the petitioner No.1 had demanded -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023 Rs.2,00,000/- for expounding of his Laboratory business and it was not given. Thereafter, the misunderstanding was started.
08. The petitioner No.1 had filed a divorce petition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal in M.C.No.51/2017 alleging that there is no consummation of marriage and prayed for grant of divorce. The respondent No.2 appeared through the counsel one Sri. M.S. Navadagi, but she had not contested the matter by filing objections and leading any evidence. Subsequently, the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Muddebihal granted the ex-parte divorce, as against the respondent No.2 on 15.12.2022, which was not challenged by her which attained finality.
09. It is also seen from the records that the respondent No.2 has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, at Lingasugur in Crl.Misc.No.107/2018 on 08.05.2018 itself. The petitioner No.1 contested the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023 matter. The learned Magistrate granted Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance, she is receiving the same and there is no dispute in this regard. On perusal of the maintenance petition filed by the respondent No.2 in the said petition she has stated that she is living separately for last two years from the date of filing of the petition in the year 2018, which means from the year 2016 onwards she is not residing with the petitioners.
10. Though, she had stated that the petitioner No.1 ill-treated her by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, but there is no allegation against the petitioner No.1 stating that he as brought one Meena and kept in a rented house and insisting for consent for divorce from the respondent No.2. Absolutely, there is no evidence or averments in this regard in the petition filed by her while claiming the maintenance. The maintenance petition was filed on 08.05.2018. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 had filed the present complaint on 16.11.2018. Even after 06 months of the filing of the maintenance petition, which appears only on bringing the said Meena and it was
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023 improved by the respondent No.2 in the complaint. There is no any complaint or any allegation either in the maintenance petition or in the divorce petition. Though, she is having acknowledge about the filing of the divorce petition, which was mentioned in the complaint, but she was not choose to contest the matter from the year 2018 to 2022, wherein the divorce decree has been granted by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Muddebihal.
11. On perusal of the records it clearly shows that there is a demand of Rs.2,00,000/- for improvement of business, that itself can not be considered as demand of any additional dowry, when there is no dowry was demanded or received after the marriage. It is undisputed fact that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent No.2 was a second marriage with the understanding that she has to look after the son born to the first wife of the petitioner No.1 out of a his first marriage, but she was not look after. The marriage is also said to be not consummated which is not disputed by the wife.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023
12. Such being the case, the competent Court decided the issue and granted the divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. The said Court has also observed that they are residing separately from 2016 onwards, within the 02 years of their marriage. Such being the case, after 04 years, she has filed a complaint, there is no reasons assigned by her for not lodging any complaint until she files the maintenance petition and knowing the divorce petition is also filed. Absolutely, there is no ingredient to attracts the provision of under Section 498A of IPC for harassment by physically and mentally with regard to the demand of any dowry.
13. Therefore, I am of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5493 CRL.P No. 201863 of 2023 ORDER I. The petition is allowed.
II. The criminal proceeding pending in Criminal Case No.314/2019 (arising out of Lingasugur Police Station in Crime No.407/2018) before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Court at Lingasugur for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 355, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE KJJ CT:SI List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8