Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kantharaju. R @ Chikkaboraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4968/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Kantharaju.R @ Chikkaboraiah
Aged about 39 years
S/o Late Ramakrishna
2. Smt.Mullamma
Aged about 68 years
W/o. Late Ramakrishna
Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are
Residents of Bedaramantapa Road
Chitradurga Town and permanent residents of
Balageri, Ramanagara town, Ramanagara
3. Sri Gopi @ Gopinath, 47 years
S/o Late.Ramakrishna
Resident of Balageri
Ramanagara Town, Ramanagara
4. Sri Jayachandra, 36 years
S/o.late.Ramakrishna
R/o. Kumbara Beedi,
Ramanagara Town, Ramanagara
2
5. Smt.Shakunthala
Aged about 42 years
W/o.Sri.Honnaiah
Resident of Madapura Village
Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk
6. Smt.Saraswathi
Aged about 40 years
W/o.Sri.Puttaswamy
Resident of Jnanajyothinagar
Bengaluru
7. Smt.Vijayalakshmi
Aged about 30 years
W/o.Sri Siddesh
Resident of Bellavara Village
Bikkode Hobli, Beluru Taluk
Hassan District ...Petitioners
(By Sri Rajesh.H.N, Adv.,)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Ramanagara Police Station
2. Smt.C.K.Nandhini
Aged about 31 years
W/o.Kantharaju
D/o.Krishna Murthy.C.B
Chikka Balli Village
Keregodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk
Mandya District ..Respondents
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
3
This Criminal Petition is filed Under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the final report submitted by
the respondent No.1 against the petitioners seeking
their prosecution for the commission of alleged offence
p/u/s 3, 4 of D.P.Act and Sec.34, 498A, 504, 323 of
IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for admission
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 473/2017 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Ramanagara District and also quash the final report submitted by the respondent No.1 in the said criminal case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A, 504, 393 read with 34 of IPC.
4
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.
2. Learned counsel submitted that hardly the complainant stayed in the house of the petitioners only for a period of one month, thereafter she went back to her parental house. It is also his contention that false allegations are made in the complaint that the petitioners herein insisted her to bring additional dowry amount and in that connection, they gave ill treatment and harassment to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel also submitted that earlier to the complaint, petitioner-1 herein, who is the husband of the complainant filed a petition before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Chitradurga under Section 13-1(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking 5 dissolution of marriage of the petitioner No.1 herein with the complainant. Hence, learned counsel contended that as a counter blast to the said matrimonial petition filed against the complainant, she has come up with the false allegations and submitted that the matter requires consideration. There is no prima facie case in the FIR and other charge sheet material, hence, submitted that it is the abuse of process of court to continue the proceedings as against the petitioners herein.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted referring to the charge sheet materials that in the complaint there are specific allegations are made by the complainant against all the petitioners that they were insisting her to bring additional dowry amount. There are allegations that petitioner No.1 assaulted her and he kicked to her 6 private part and other petitioners also ill treated her in connection with the dowry amount.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader refers to the statement of the witnesses whose statement has been recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer. He also submitted that the statement of the witnesses are in consistent with the complaint averments made by the complainant. Hence, it is the contention that there are prima face materials collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is without any prima facie materials or it is abuse of the process of court. Hence, he requested to reject the petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the earlier petition filed seeking divorce filed by the 7 petitioner -1 against the complainant and also other materials produced collected during the investigation. It is not only the allegations in the complaint but the statement of the witnesses supports prima facie contents of the allegations made in the complaint.
7. It is no doubt true that the first petitioner herein being the husband filed the dissolution of marriage petition against the complainant earlier to this petition but only on that ground the entire materials collected during the investigation which are making out prima facie cannot be neglected by this Court. Therefore, considering the materials placed on record by the prosecution hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as there is prima facie material made out by the prosecution.
Hence, petition is rejected.
8Since the main petition is rejected, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVK