Karnataka High Court
Smt.Vanishree Aravind Koliwad vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101749 OF 2018
Between:
1. Smt.Vanishree Aravind Koliwad,
W/o.Aravind Koliwad, Age 42 years,
Occ: Teacher, R/o.: Nirdhar Apartment,
Yalakkishettar Colony, Dharwad-580001.
2. Shri Aravind Koliwad,
S/o.Late Vasanth Rao Koliwad,
Age 42 years, Occ: FDA,
R/o.: Nirdhar Apartment,
Yalakkishettar Colony,
Dharwad-580001.
3. Smt.Jayashree Joshi,
W/o. Ravikuamr Joshi,
Age 37 years, Occ: private Service,
R/o.: #015, A-Block,
D S Max Swasthik Apartment,
Near Paduka Mandira Road,
Thurahalli, Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru-560 098.
... Petitioners
(By Shri Shivaraj S.Balloli, Advocate)
:2:
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Through Siruguppa Police Station,
At Post Siruguppa, Tq.: Hosapete,
Dist.: Ballari-583 121,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad.
2. Smt.Rekha W/o.Sudheendra M.S.,
Age 31 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o.: Near Vadakaraya Temple,
Old Vegetable Market, Opp: "Sripati Clinic",
Hosapete, Dist.: Ballari-583 121,
Now residing at C/o.: K.Venkata Rao,
Opp: Panduranga Temple, V.V. Nagar,
3rd Cross, Siruguppa, Dist.: Ballari.
... Respondents
(By Shri Raja RAghavendra Naik, HCGP for R1;
R2 - served)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. 1973, seeking to quash the impugned order dated
09.08.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Siruguppa in C.C.No.711/2018 arising out of
P.C.No.4/2018, thereby taking cognizance against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Section
498-A, 120-B, 313, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC,
1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, insofar
as the petitioners are concerned and quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.711/2018 arising out of
P.C.No.4/2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Siruguppa insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the
Court made the following:
:3:
ORDER
This Court had issued notice to respondent No.2 on 08.01.2019, the same was served on respondent No.2. Immediately thereafter, the matter was listed for admission, the respondent No.2 has not appeared, though her name is printed in the cause list. Hence, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri Shivaraj S.Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
3. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.4 to 6 in C.C.No.711/2018 arising out of P.C.No.4/2018 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa are before this Court seeking for quashing of the said proceedings. The said proceedings have been initiated alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 313, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. :4:
4. Shri Shivaraj S.Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the only allegation, which has been made against the petitioners herein is at paragraph No.6 of the complaint, which is hereunder reproduced as under for reference:
"6. The accused No.4 to 6 having colluded with accused No.1 & 3 in order to drive the complainant to the house of accused No.1, though black magic all of them hold the negotiations through the cell phone and same has been recorded by the complainant. The said audio CD is filed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court, having transferred into CD in her own system. The accused No.5 is puppet of accused No.3 & 4 and he is dancing as per tuning of his wife i.e., accused No.4. All of them having made the conspiracy to send out the complainant from the house of accused No.1 gave lot of mental and physical torture for want of said additional dowry, whenever they use to come to their parental house."
5. He submits that the complaint has been filed by the wife of brother of petitioner Nos.1 and 3. :5: Petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1. It is contended that the petitioners are not residing in matrimonial home of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 in fact they are residing in different cities. The matrimonial home is stated to be in Hosapete, whereas petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residing in Dharwad and petitioner No.3 is residing in Bengaluru. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they have been implicated in the matter only to try and prejudice the entire family, more so accused No.1 and there are no specific allegations which have been made against the petitioners in the entire complaint.
6. On the basis of the above allegations, it is contended that the entire proceedings need to be quashed, since there are no overt acts, which are alleged to have been committed by accused Nos.4 to 6 and the continuation of the proceedings would only cause grave harm and prejudice to the interest of the petitioners, whereas there is nothing on record to implicate the :6: petitioners in any of the offences alleged in P.C.No.4/2018, which is now registered as C.C.No.711/2018.
7. Learned HCGP opposes the above petition on the ground that there are serious allegations, which have been made against the petitioners and the same needs to be adjudicated after trial and at present the petition filed is not sustainable.
8. Having heard Shri Shivaraj S.Balloli, the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the complaint, it is seen that there are no allegations made against the petitioners, which would give raise to the complaint against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 313, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The only allegations made are that the petitioner allegedly indulged themselves in black magic and various telephonic communications. There is no allegation against the accused No.4 to 6 that they :7: have caused any demand of dowry on the complainant. In the above background, the allegation in paragraph 6 of the complaint being omni bus statement and there is been no specific allegations made against the accused No.4 to 6 i.e., the petitioners herein, the same cannot be continued against the petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 .
9. In view of the above discussions, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.4 to 6 in C.C.No.711/2018 arising out of P.C.No.4/2018 are quashed. The petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*