Karnataka High Court
Sri. Krishna Prasad vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 807 OF 2018 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN
SRI. KRISHNA PRASAD
SON OF SRI. K. R. RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 20 ENGAINE DRIVE,
SHENLEY CHURCH END,
MILTON,
KEYNES,
MK 56BD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: G. SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRAKASH N BY THE HALASURUGATE WOMEN
Location: POLICE STATION,
HIGH EAST DIVISION,
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 051,
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY:
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT KSHAMA RANGAN
WIFE OF SREENIVASA RANGAN
AGE 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.113,2ND CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
S.T.BED LAYOUT,
4TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT RADHA JAYANTHI for SRI. N. BAYYA REDDY., ADVOCATE
FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED SECTION 482 OF CRPC
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET LODGED IN
C.C.NO.12051/2017 LODGED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A) AND 506 OF THE
IPC READ WITH SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.07.2024, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner-husband is before this Court seeking
for the following reliefs:
a) Quash the charge sheet lodged in
CC.No.12051/2017 lodged against the petitioner
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)
and 506 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, pending on the file of the VI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
b) Pass any other or further orders which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
2. Respondent No.2-wife lodged a complaint on
20.01.2016, stating that she was married to the
Petitioner. They have two children, a daughter and a
son. They were residing in UK from the time of their
marriage. There has been physical and mental
torture from her husband from the beginning.
3. The wife had taken a job in UK and the husband had
followed her as a dependent. Thereafter, they
returned back to India in the year 2009. However,
the husband deserted her and went back to UK,
where the wife had joined him. The husband was
forcing her to take up a job. She did not get proper
medical assistance during her pregnancy. The
husband was harassing her by frequently compelling
her to give all her earnings to him. She had come
back to Bangalore and was living with her father.
4. The husband approached her with a rapprochement,
in furtherance of which, they went back to UK, where
the physical and mental torture continued. Efforts
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
were being made by the husband and his father to
separate the children from her. It is in that
background that the complaint was filed that action
be taken against her husband for trying to separate
her and the children.
5. It is further alleged that the passports had been
taken over by the husband causing a restraint on the
travel of the wife and the children. On the basis of
the said complaint, a FIR in Crime No.7/2016 was
registered by the Halasuru Gate Women Police
Station for offences under Section 498A and 506 of
IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961. On investigation, a charge sheet has also
been laid in C.C.No.12051/2017 for the very same
offences which is pending before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. It is challenging
the charge sheet that the above petition has been
filed.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
6. Shri C. Shankar Reddy, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that:
6.1. the said complaint is a complete abuse of
process of law. It is the wife who has abducted
the minor children and gone to an undiscovered
location. The petitioner therefore filed a
petition under Section 9 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890 which came to be withdrawn
subsequently. The case for the repatriation of
the minor children to United Kingdom was also
filed. Though there was a direction for
repatriation, the children had not been sent
back to UK. Proceedings before this Court were
filed seeking for Habeas Corpus which came to
be dismissed. Proceedings have been filed for
custody of the children.
6.2. It is in that background he submits that the
present complaint has been filed only to harass
the husband due to the marital discord between
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
husband and wife where the children have also
not been allowed to interact with the husband -
father.
6.3. His submission is that the entire reading of the
complaint does not indicate any offence under
Section 498A or under Section 506 of IPC.
There was never any demand made for dowry
for Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to be
applicable. He submits that the complaint is a
malicious one, as a counter blast to the various
proceedings which have been initiated by the
petitioner.
6.4. There have been various proceedings including
one before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP
Criminal Nos.12400-12402/2023. The Hon'ble
Apex Court had directed the quashing of
proceeding in Criminal Petition No.4553/2018,
Criminal Petition No.10181/2017, Criminal
Petition No.7420/2019, as also the suit in
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
O.S.No.118/2017, vide its order dated
29.04.2024.
6.5. He submits that this was with an intention to
bring a closure to all the proceedings between
the husband and wife and only the proceedings
under the Guardians and Wards Act would
continue.
6.6. His submission is that the Petitioner has
complied with all the requirements as indicated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Necessary
affidavits of apology have been filed before the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The passports have been
handed over and as such, the present
complaint is also required to be quashed since
the intention of the parties as expressed before
the Hon'ble Apex Court was only for the
continuation of the proceedings under the
Guardians and Wards Act.
7. Smt. Radha Jayanthi, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-wife would submit that:
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
7.1. A charge sheet having been laid and the
evidence indicating that the offences have been
committed by the Petitioner, this Court ought
not to intercede in the matter.
7.2. She submits that an amount of 23,000 UK
Pounds has been retained by the Petitioner
which requires to be paid to the Respondent-
wife. Insofar as the handover of passports, she
submits that the Petitioner has made an
endorsement in the passport which he ought
not to have been made which makes it difficult
for the respondent and children to travel.
7.3. The allegations which have been made by the
Respondent - wife being factual in nature, a
charge sheet has been laid, the Petitioner is
required to stand trial and this Court ought not
to intercede in the matter to quash the
proceedings.
8. Heard Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.M.R.Patil, learned HCGP for respondent
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
No.1 and Smt. Radha Jayanthi, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and perused papers.
9. This is one other instance of a fight between the
husband and wife resulting in multitude of matters.
The Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration
several matters which have been filed by the parties
had quashed those proceedings. The present
proceeding is not one of them. The contention of Ms.
Radha Jayanti, learned counsel for the respondent is
that an amount of 23,000 UK pounds is due and
liable to be paid by the Petitioner. It is in furtherance
thereof that the Petitioner had been called upon to
place on record the details of the company in which
both the husband and wife were Directors as also the
bank account. The said details have been placed on
record.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Petitioner had retired from the Secretaryship of
the Company and thereafter it was the respondent
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
who had continued as a Secretary and it is for her to
verify and withdraw the amounts.
11. Per contra, the contention of the respondent-wife is
that the Company has been closed by the Petitioner
and as such the amounts are available with the
Petitioner.
12. Though several contentions have been urged in
respect of these 23,000 UK pounds, what can be
seen is that claiming recovery of these 23,000
pounds, a suit in O.S.No.118/2017 had been filed.
Apart from recovery of 23,000 pounds, further
amounts totalling upto 40 lakh of rupees was sought
for in the said suit. The said suit having been agreed
to be withdrawn by the respondent in SLP
Crl.Nos.12400-12402/2023, I am of the considered
opinion that no further claim could be made by the
respondent - wife as regards this 23,000 pounds
since the very suit has been agreed to be withdrawn
and the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
that the proceedings in O.S.No.118/2017 and other
connected matters would stand quashed and set
aside.
13. The claim now made post the order dated
29.04.2024 by the Hon'ble Apex Court would amount
to re-agitation of this very same issue which cannot
be permitted.
14. Insofar as the claim as regards the endorsement
made in the passport is concerned, the direction for
handover of the passport having been issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, any grievance that the
respondent may have in relation thereto, would have
to be taken up by the respondent before the Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court cannot pass any orders
thereon.
15. Coming to the merits of the matter, the allegations
which have been made in the complaint which
resulted in a charge sheet being laid in my
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
considered opinion do not make out any case for an
offence under Section 498A of IPC.
16. Section 498A of IPC is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
498A Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty:
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.
17. Cruelty as per the explanation would have to be in
the nature as likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life,
limb or health whether mental or physical to the
woman and the harassment is to be with the view of
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
coercing her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security.
18. In the present case, the allegation made in the
complaint filed by the wife is that the husband had
allegedly pretended to commit suicide due to the
children being taken away from him. The allegations
made in the complaint are as bald as it could be.
The vague allegations made as regards the husband
having compelled the wife to take up work and earn
and hand over the money to the husband and there
is a threat held out of separating mother from the
children. None of these threats are borne out. In
fact, the children are in the custody of the
respondent - wife and there is a custody proceedings
going on under the Guardians and Wards Act
between the husband and the wife. Thus, the
question of separating the mother from the children
would not arise and as held by the Hon'ble Apex
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
Court, the proceedings under the Guardians and
Wards Act would continue.
19. All the proceedings between the husband and wife
having come to an end except the Guardians and
Wards Act and the present matter, I am of the
considered opinion that there would be no purpose
served in continuing the prosecution of the husband
in the present matter. The husband having issued
apology letters as demanded by the respondent -
wife and all the other proceedings having been
closed.
20. The claim of the wife as regards 23,000 UK pounds
has been dealt with earlier. The claim of the wife as
regards the separation of the children has also been
dealt with earlier. In that view of the matter, I am of
the considered opinion that the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the husband would not
be in the interest of justice. The offences as alleged
are not borne out in the complaint filed. The
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36371
CRL.P No. 807 of 2018
complaint has been filed on account of the marital
dispute between the husband and wife and it is high
time for this Court to take into consideration the
misuse of these provisions and quash the criminal
proceedings when the reliefs available to the parties
are in civil proceedings. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The charge sheet / proceedings in C.C.No.12051/2017 lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 506 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1