Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatesh, Ethiraj vs State By Women Police Station on 21 September, 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6511/2018
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.810/2016
CRL.P.NO.6511/2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATESH, ETHIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE MR. ETHIRAJ
R/O NO. 31, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REPRESENTED BY HIS
S.P.A.HOLDER-MR. DHANRAJ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI ANBUNATHAN
R/O 21, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
VASANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUKUMARAN.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
HALASURU GATE, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. KANAGESHWARI VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O SRI VENKATESH ETHIRAJ
-2-
NO.1/7, 9TH G - STREET,
JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR., HCGP FOR R1;
R2- SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.11303/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S. 498-A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3,4 OF D.P ACT
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FILED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT/THE WOMEN P.S., HALASURU
GATE, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
CRL.P.NO.810/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT E. SUJATHA RANI
W/O SRI N. SARAVANA SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O NO. 23/2, RAMAKRISHNA
LAYOUT MAIN ROAD,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
2. SMT. GEETHA DHANARAJ
W/O SRI A. DHANARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O NO. 31, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. SMT. E. SANGEETHA RANI
D/O SRI R. ETHIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O NO. 24, VALLAIAR STREET,
GOVINDARAJ NAGAR,
OTTERI, BAGAYAM,
VELLORE - 632 002.
4. SMT. E. JEEJABAI
-3-
W/O SRI R ETHIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O NO. 24, VALLAIAR STREET,
GOVINDARAJ NAGAR,
OTTERI, BAGAYAM,
VELLORE - 632 002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUKUMARAN.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
HALASURU GATE, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
2. SMT. KANAGESHWARI VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O SRI VENKATESH ETHIRAJ,
R/O 1/7, 9TH G.STREET, JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI D.K. SRIRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 11303/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF VI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.6511/2018 has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.810/2016 has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in -4- C.C.No.11303/2015 pending on the file of VI Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel-
Sri.Sukumaran G., for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Though the complainant has been served with notice, he has remained absent and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is also not present.
3. Though the present petitions have been listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State, the same are taken up for final disposal.
-5-
4. The genesis of the complaint is that:
The complainant married accused No.1 on 18.1.2013 as they were in love with each other. The said marriage was solemnized at Vellore. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were living together and matrimonial dispute arose between them. It is further alleged that the petitioners -accused used to ill-treat and harass the complainant for demand of dowry. Therefore, a private complaint has been registered in PCR No.5560/2014. Subsequently, the matter has been referred to the Police and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of the complainant - respondent No.2 and accused No.1 is a love marriage and there is no question of payment of any dowry by the respondent No.2 to the accused No.1. It is his further submission that earlier on 17.2.2014 a complaint has been -6- registered by the respondent No.2 with ulterior motive and with malafide intention alleging that the petitioners jointly ill-treated and harassed the complainant for demand of dowry. The said complaint has been investigated by the police and the police have closed the said complaint stating that there is no material as against the accused. Now, a private complaint has been filed before the Court with similar allegation with an intention to harass the accused. It is his further submission that accused Nos.2 and 3 are permanent resident of Bengaluru and accused Nos.4 and 5 are permanent resident of Vellore. He further submits that accused No.5 is aged about 75 years and there is no question of accused No.5 ill-treating and harassing the complainant for demand of dowry. It is his further submission that because of matrimonial dispute, MC No.2850/2014 came to be filed and subsequently, divorce decree has been granted dissolving the matrimonial relationship. It is his further submission -7- that only with an intention to harass the petitioners- accused, the present complaint has been filed against them. It is his further submission that the present complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the contents of the complaint and other materials clearly show that there is sufficient material for having ill- treated and harassed the complainant - respondent No.2 by the petitioners. It is his further submission that there was demand for dowry and even at the time of marriage also, the complainant has given dowry and the details of dowry received by the petitioners-accused are also stated in the complaint. It is his further submission that the petitioners-accused only with an intention to take revenge are trying to get the -8- proceedings quashed. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced in this petition and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners - accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State.
8. On going through the contents of the complaint, it is seen that a private complaint has been filed by the complainant on 9.6.2014 and subsequently, the same has been referred to the police for investigation. Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed. A close reading of the contents of the complaint it reveals that major allegation is made as against the accused No.1 and insofar as the other accused persons are concerned, accused No.3 is totally depending on the -9- income of the accused No.1 and that the complainant alleges that the other accused were directly and indirectly supporting the accused persons in harassing the complainant. It is further noticed that some minor family discrepancies were there that of not giving the ATM card, pin number and other materials, and these are not considered as major allegations. The contents of the complaint go to show that accused No.4 used to harass the complainant to bring jewelry. The marriage of the complainant and accused No.1 is a love marriage and divorce has also been granted by dissolving the marriage and there is no matrimonial relationship. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances of the case, only with an intention to tie up with the family members of the accused No.1, said complaint has been registered.
9. A close reading of the contents of the complaint it reveals that there are no serious allegations
- 10 -
against accused Nos.2 to 5. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, there are some allegations made as against him. Taking into consideration the above factual matrix of the case, the said complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the family members of the accused No.1 only on the ground that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are resident of Bengaluru. It is stated that after marriage, the complainant and accused No.1 lived together in a separate house. Insofar as continuation of proceedings as against accused Nos.2 to 5 is concerned, it is considered to be abuse of process of law as there is no serious allegation and material to connect them with the alleged complaint and the same requires to be interfered by this Court.
10. In the light of above discussion, the Crl.P.No.810/2016 is allowed and proceeding as against the accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.11303/2015 pending on the file of VI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru for the offences
- 11 -
punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act is quashed. Insofar as Crl.P.No.6511/2018 is concerned, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.6511/2018 is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the above petitions, IA No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA