Karnataka High Court
Sri.Raghavendra S/O Bhimarao Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2022
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100742 OF 2019 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O BHIMARAO PATIL,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/O: D453 SLS SIGNATURE
KAVERAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR VIDYA VIKAS SCHOOL,
PANATTUR, BENGALURU-560103.
2. SMT.PRABHAVATI W/O BHIMARAO PATIL
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: D453 SLS SIGNATURE
KAVERAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR VIDYA VIKAS SCHOOL,
PANATTUR, BENGALURU-560103.
3. SMT.CHANDRIKA @ MANJULA,
W/O SUDHINDRA PATIL,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
R/O: 645, 10TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, HMT LAYOUT,
POST: NAGASANDRA,
BENGALURU9560073.
4. SRI.SUDHINDRA S/O VIJENDRA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: PRODUCTION MANAGER,
R/O: 645, 10TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, HMT LAYOUT,
-2-
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019
POST: NAGASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560073.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS MAHILA POLICE STATION AUTHORITIES,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2. SMT.VIJETHA @ SAMRUDDI,
W/O RAGHAVENDRA PATIL,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/O: 57 AKSHAYA,
R/O: C/O GOPHALRAO HULAMANI,
HOUSE NO.57, VASANTH NAGAR
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI GOPAL B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.413/2019 (MAHILA POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, P.S.
CRIME NO.39/2018), ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT HEREIN, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC,
AND SEC. 3 & 4 OF D.P. ACT, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED
INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.
-3-
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records on admission.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-
"That the entire proceedings in C.C.No.413/2019 (Mahila Police Station, Hubballi, P.S. Crime No.39/2018), on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, against the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, may kindly be quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned, by allowing this criminal petition."
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
A complaint came to be filed by the 2nd respondent herein with Mahila Police Station, Hubballi which was registered in Crime No.39/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, -4- CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners herein. 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent, 2 n d petitioner is the mother-in-law, 3 r d petitioner is the sister-in-law and 4 t h petitioner is the husband of the 3 r d petitioner. The complaint averments reveal that the marriage of the 2n d respondent took place with 1st petitioner on 04.06.2015 in Vishwanath Kalyan Mantapa, Hubballi as per the Hindu rights and customs and Rs.25,000/-
cash was paid as dowry and 10 gram chain and 5 gram ring and about 1 kg silver articles were given.
After marriage, she joined the matrimonial home at Bengaluru and she had a happy married life for a period of six to eight months without any hindrance.
The 3 r d petitioner and 4 t h petitioner are living in a house at 8 t h Milestone, Penya and they used to often visit the house of the 1 s t petitioner. After six to eight months, husband of the 2 n d respondent started doubting the fidelity of the 2nd respondent and -5- CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 coerced her to give up the job of Software Engineer.
When this was brought to the notice of 3 r d and 4 t h petitioners, instead of advising the 1 s t petitioner, they also started abusing the 2 n d respondent in a filthy language. 2 n d petitioner being mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent, instead of advising the 1st petitioner properly, instigated the 1 s t petitioner to harass the 2 n d respondent physically and mentally and also demanded additional dowry. Based on the said complaint, police registered the aforesaid case and have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.
4. The petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance and summoning them before the Court in C.C.No.413/2019. In the petition, following grounds have been urged.
• The petitioners respectfully submit that they are innocent and they have not committed any offences as alleged against them and the criminal proceeding initiated by the 2nd -6- CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 respondent against them is virtually an abuse of process of law and the same has been filed with a dishonest intention to harass them and as such if the criminal proceedings initiated by the 2 respondent is not quashed, the petitioners will be put to great hardship and loss.
• The petitioners also respectfully submits that even though there is no material against the petitioners herein, the police authorities, without properly investigating the matter and even without considering the relevant documents produced by them before the police station authorities, have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners, in collusion with the 2 respondent and her family members. The fact that the second respondent has materially suppressed the facts and filed the complaint at the belated stage, which clearly shows that the allegations made by the 2 respondents against the petitioners are wholly false and not sustainable in law. The police authorities -7- CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 have failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioners, which clearly shows that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners and allegations made by the 2 respondent are false, the charge sheet filed by the Mahila Police Station authorities even without properly looking in the matter, is wholly illegal and not sustainable in law.
• The Learned Magistrate also without application of this judicious mind and too mechanically ordered for the issuance of the summons to the petitioners, even though there is no prima facie case against the petitioners, and the said proceedings initiated by the 2 respondent is virtually an abuse of process of law and as such the same is required to be quashed.
• The petitioners respectfully submit that the manner in which the case has been filed by the 2nd respondent before the Hubballi Police Station Authorities when admittedly the 1 petitioner and 2 respondent was last resided together at -8- CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 Bengaluru and taking undue advantage of the relatives marriage of the petitioners herein at Dharwad and filed the false case against the petitioners even though the petitioners have not at all visited the house of the 2 respondent on that day, which itself shows that the said case filed by the second respondent, is false and to enable the police authority of Mahila Police Station Hubballi to get jurisdiction to enquiry in to the matter and when particularly the Mahila Police Station authorities even without properly conducting proper investigation appears to have filed a charge sheet against the petitioners herein, which is also not proper.
• The petitioners also respectfully submit that the petitioner No.3 is a married sister of the 1" petitioner and she along with her husband -the petitioner No.4 is residing separately in their matrimonial house and they have no way concerned to the affairs of the first petitioner, and arraying the petitioner No.3 and 4 also an accused in the said case itself shows -9- CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 that the intention of the 2 respondent is only to harass all the family members of her husband i.e., 1" petitioner and the manner in which the case has been filed and the allegation made in the said charge sheet clearly shows that the said initiations of the said criminal proceedings against these petitioners are wholly illegal and not sustainable in law.
• The order passed by the Learned Magistrate is also without application of his judicious mind and the Learned Magistrate has also not considered any of the materials filed by the police authorities along with the charge sheet which itself disproves the case of the 2 respondent and as such the said order passed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence, is also not sustainable in law.
• The learned Magistrate has also failed to consider the fact of the delay in filing the complaint and when the said delay has not been explained by the second respondent, the initiation of the criminal
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019proceedings and cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, are not sustainable in law.
• Even otherwise also the initiation of the criminal proceedings by the 2"
respondent against the petitioners herein, is wholly illegal and not sustainable in law. The petitioners also respectfully submit that from the averments made in the complaint itself it is clear that no any offence has been made out against the petitioners herein, and as such the entire proceedings is required to be quashed.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the 2nd petitioner is aged 67 years and except vague allegations made against her in the complaint, no specific overt-acts are alleged against the 2nd petitioner and sought for quashing the complaint. He also contended that 3rd and 4th petitioners are admittedly residing in a separate house and since
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 they have not shared common roof, the allegations leveled against them cannot be per-se countenanced in law in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and others V/s State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758 and in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others V/s State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162 and sought for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Gopal B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that complaint averments is not the encyclopedia of entire incident and police after thorough investigation collected the materials against the 3 r d and 4th petitioners as well and there is enough material on record including the demand of dowry by the 2 n d petitioner and therefore, no case is made out for quashing of further proceedings and sought for dismissal of the petition.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader supports the arguments put forth on behalf of the 2 n d respondent.
8. In the light of the rival contention of the parties, this Court perused the material evidence on record meticulously.
9. Admittedly, marriage has taken place between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent on 04.06.2015. The present complaint came to be filed on 20.10.2018. According to complainant, she has led happy married life only for six to eight months and thereafter there were instances wherein the 2 n d respondent has been physically and mentally harassed by the 1 s t petitioner herein. 2 n d respondent has instigated the 1 s t petitioner in all such activities. However, insofar as the 3 r d and 4 t h petitioners are concerned admittedly 3 r d petitioner is the sister-in- law of the complainant and 4 t h petitioner is the husband of 3rd petitioner. Admittedly, they are residing in Peenya in a separate house. The distance
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 between the residence of matrimonial home of the 2nd respondent and the house of 3rd and 4th petitioner is about 20 kms. It is highly unimaginable that the 3 r d and 4 t h petitioners without having their private life would start interfering with the matrimonial life of 1 s t petitioner and 2 n d respondent on day-to-day basis. May as elders of the family, the differences is brought to their notice and suitable advice would have been given by them to set right the differences between the 1 s t petitioner and 2 n d respondent. Only for that reason, they cannot be arraigned as accused persons especially for the offences under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no specific material contentions as against 3 r d and 4 t h petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivatsva and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others (supra) has specifically ruled that in a matter of this nature, if the accused persons are residing in a separate roof other than
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019 the husband and wife, the Court must be slow in taking cognizance and proceeding against them unless there is a specific material against them also for the alleged harassment. In the case on hand, on perusal of the charge sheet material, this Court does not find any such compelling reasons to proceed against the 3rd and 4th petitioners concerned. Accordingly, further proceedings as against them needs to be quashed. However, as against the 1 s t petitioner who is the husband of the 2 n d respondent and 2 n d petitioner who is the mother of the 1 s t petitioner are concerned, there are material on record which would make them to stand for the trial in C.C.No.413/2019. Mere 2 n d petitioner being aged 67 years would not be a factor to quash the criminal complaint against her. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed in part. Petition against petitioners No.1 and 2 is dismissed. Petition against petitioners
- 15 -CRL.P No. 100742 of 2019
No.3 and 4 is allowed by quashing the further proceedings in C.C.No.413/2019 (Mahila Police Station, Hubballi, in Crime No.39/2018) insofar as 3rd and 4th petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK