Karnataka High Court
Harikiran M C vs State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7115 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4621 OF 2020
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7115/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HARIKIRAN M.C.
S/O SATHYANARAYANA M C K
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.3-143/2, 2ND FLOOR
MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR
PEERZADIGUDA
HYDERABAD-500 097
ALSO EMPLOYED AT:
M/S INFOSYS
EMPLOYED I D : 697414
SEZ SURVEY NO.41 (PT) 50 (PT)
POCHARAM VILLAGE
SINGAPORE TOWN SHIP PO
GHATKESAR MANDAL
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
HYDERABAD-500 092.
2. SRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.C.K
S/O RAMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT BESIDE BOYS HIGH SCHOOL
MAIN ROAD
2
PEAPULLY POST, KURNOOL DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-518 221
3. SMT. SUVARNA LAKSHMI
W/O SATHYANARAYANA M.C.K
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BESIDE BOYS HIGH SCHOOL
MAIN ROAD, PEAPULLY POST
KURNOOL DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-518 221
4. SRI. SUBRAMANYA
S/O SUBBARAYADU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.18/102, PEAPULLY BANTHALA,
NANDIYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-518 301
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KARNATAKA
WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 027
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O HARIKIRAN .M.C
D/O LATE MOHAN .S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.53, NIRMALA BUILDING
IST MAIN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE
SUDHAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI HONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PCR NO.34/2017 IN S.C.NO.1359/2018
DATED 21.06.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN PCR NO.34/2017 WHICH
IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71) AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
IN S.C.NO.1359/2018.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4621/2020
BETWEEN:
HARIKIRAN .M.C
S/O SATHYANARAYANA .M.C.K
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.3-143/2, 2ND FLOOR
MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR, PEERZADIGUDDA
HYDERABAD-500 092
ALSO EMPLOYED AT
M/S INFOSYS
EMPLOYED ID 697414
SEZ SURVEY NO. 41(PT)50(PT)
POCHARAM VILLAGE, SINGAPORE TOWN SHIP PO
GHATKESAR MADAL, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
HYDERABAD-5000088
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001
4
2. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O HARIKIRAN .M.C
D/O LATE MOHAN .S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO. 53, NIRMALA BUILDING
1ST MAIN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE
SUDHAMA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI HONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.1359/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND SECTION
498A, 506, 323 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
These two captioned petitions are filed by accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.1359/2018 (Crime No.136/2017) on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judges and Special Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 323, 498(A) of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Crl.P.No.7115/2019 is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 who are husband, in-laws and relative of respondent No.2/complainant. Crl.P.No.4621/2020 is filed by husband/accused No.1.
2. Respondent No.2, wife of accused No.1 has filed a private complaint against in-laws, relative and also husband. The essence of the complaint revolves around accusation of offences punishable under various Sections of Indian Penal Code, Dowry Prohibition Act and also under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The crux of the 6 complaint pertains to conduct of accused No.1 who is alleged to have demanded money, subjected his wife i.e., respondent No.2 to harassment and cruelty throughout their marital life. Respondent No.2 by launching the complaint in 2016 has specifically alleged that her husband (accused No.1) was persistently demanding money from her parents to buy a bike. It is also asserted by respondent No.2 that accused No.1's actions were characterized by suspicion, restrictions of respondent No.2's freedom by checking e-mails and also whatsapp messages. The allegations also remotely indicate instances of dowry demands and discriminatory treatment by in-laws based on respondent No.2's caste.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/complainant and learned HCGP.
7
4. Before I advert to the allegations made in the complaint as well as the charge sheet materials, it would be useful for this Court to refer to the latest judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State of U.P. and Others1. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that when an accused seeks to quash FIR or criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that they are frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by ulterior motives, the Court has a duty to carefully scrutinize the FIR. The Court noted that complainants with such motives often draft FIRs meticulously to ensure they meet the necessary legal requirements. Therefore, the Court cannot rely solely on the contents of the FIR to determine if the alleged offence is disclosed. Instead, in such cases, the Court must consider all relevant circumstances beyond the FIR itself, including materials collected during investigation, 1 2023 SCC Online SC 947 8 and may need to read between the lines to assess the true nature of the case. The Court asserted that jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Article 226 of the Constitution allows Courts to take into account the overall circumstances surrounding the initiation of the case. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the relevant paragraphs of the complaint which read as under:
"3. With the marriage of the complainant, she was taken to the house that was taken on lease in Mavalli, Bangalore. The complainant and the accused began their marital relation at that house. It was a rental house taken on lease by the accused No.1. The accused No.1, soon after the engagement had told the complainant to quit the job. The complainant about ten days before the marriage had left and quit the job. The complainant conceived very soon after her marriage. The accused No.1 who had a job and who had to ferry from Mavalli to Domlur, insisted the complainant to demand a motor bike from her mother. This was a demand of dowry which the accused No.4 had also made at the time of marriage negotiations which was refused by the complainant's mother. The demand was renewed and very often the accused No.1 kept pesturing the complainant to purchase the motor bike. In the meanwhile, the nomination of the LIC policy of the complainant was also demanded to be changed from her mother to that of the accused No.1 and it was changed, on his demand. That the policy was for Rs.5,00,000/-. The accused No.1 unmindful of the complainant being pregnant kept demanding the complainant to fetch motor cycle and had no mercy at all. The accused No.1 had totally transformed into a different creature. Unable to bear the repeated demands and harassments, the complainant conveyed the demand of the accused No.1 to 9 the complainant's mother. The complainant's mother assured that, she would do something to meet the demand, yet, there was urgency on the part of the accused No.1 and on that point of demand, he quarrelled with the complainant and her mother. This became a regular habit of the accused No.1 and he begun assaulting the complainant causing verbal abuse and ceased to pay any money to the complainant for her household expense. Neither the accused No.1 provided any money for medical check up and examinations. There was once a big fight over that demand and the accused No.1 had again beat the complainant on that day. The complainant, pained by such acts of the accused No.1 and fed-up by the handling of the accused No.1, the whole day she kept herself to the Annamma temple at Majestic, Bangalore. When the complainant's mother did not find her in the house, panicked, on her return, her mother on that night agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of a bike for the accused No.1. On the very same night, the complainant's mother paid Rs.50,000/- to purchase the bike and asked the accused No.1 to contribute the differential amount for the purchase of it. Though paid with the money, the accused No.1 did not purchase the motor bike, neither did he purchase any vehicle and drained all the money paid by her mother. Thereafter the accused No.1 devised other vicious method of harassing the complainant by suspecting the complainant's character and fidelity. Time and again he would say that, the complainant has many number of friends and that she is occupied with them. The accused No.1 would check the mobile phone every time he comes home and also used to check her mails without the complainant's knowledge, as he knew her e-mail password. This was insulting and keeping the complainant in trauma. The accused No.1 was a vegetarian, therefore, had prohibited the complainant from bringing, preparing or having Non-vegetarian food. Neither the accused No.1 provided any nutritious food when she was carrying her child. The whole of the pregnancy time had a terrible time for the complainant as she was ill-fed. Under such circumstances on 18.03.2013 she gave birth to the child in St. Phelomina's Hospital Bangalore. It was a painful delivery as it was a caesarean labor. After delivery, the complainant was taken to her mother's house and care was 10 provided. The accused No.1's company paid for the medical expenses of the complainant. For the five months of stay in her house, the accused No.1 lived there, but without paying for any expenses. The naming ceremony of the child was made on 11.08.2013 and all family members of the accused were invited, but, none attended from the accused side. Neither the accused No.2 to 4 visited the complainant or the child. The accused No.1 then took the complainant to a house which he had made at Domlur which he felt would be near to his employment place. For about eight to nine months the complainant and the accused stayed at Domlur and thereafter the accused told that, he has the project work at Chennai for about a week and left. Thereafter, the accused No.1 conveyed that, he has found a new job and therefore, herself and the child has to move there. Packing everything, the complainant and the child were taken to Chennai. For about a year the complainant lived in Chennai, but, the complainant No.1 harassed the complainant with same treatment which he use to treat in Bangalore by paying nothing for the house hold expenses and quarrelling on every trivial issues. The accused No.1 had a very bad habit of suspecting the complainant's character and dedication towards him and he would address her in a foul and filthy language. The complainant had offered to take up an employment to ease my financial problems, but, the accused No.1 strictly refused to have any employment. The reason behind refusing her to join the employment was his distrust.
4. That, after staying for about a year in Chennai, the accused No.1 told that, the complainant had to move to Hyderabad, where he has founded job at Infosys. The complainant and the family moved to Hyderabad in a rented house taken by the accused No.1 and it was in April 2015. That, the accused had very well planned to move out of Bangalore. Now, he was near to his home town. With the accused shifting to Hyderabad, the accused No.2 to 4 and the other member of his family were the regular visitors to the house, but, it was for accused No.1 alone. The accused No.2 to 4 begun to execute their plans of separating the accused No.1 and in doing so, they begun to guide the accused No.1 in such a way that he begun to keep himself aloof. They demanded that all the jewelleries 11 which the complainant has should be kept and handed over to the accused No.2 and 3. This was refused by the complainant, which gave rise to violent fights and quarrels from the accused No.1. times. The complainant was beaten mercilessly many a times. Later, there was a suggestion that, the complainant, if she was not interested in handing over the jewels to the accused No.1, 2 or 3 should be placed in a bank locker. The complainant was forced to open a locker jointly with the accused No.1 which was obtained on rent. The complainant was not comfortable of placing jewels in the locker as she was aware of the habits of the accused No.1 who had drained everything which were given to him at the time of marriage and on the pretext of buying a motor cycle. That, the accused No.1 to 3 did not leave the complainant to live in peace until they took the jewels from the complainant. The fate of the jewels are not known to the complainant and she reasonably believes that, those jewels have been moved to their native place at Peapuly, Karnool District, Andra Pradesh, moved by the accused No.1 to 4. Once the jewels were taken by them, the neglect of the complainant and the child begun. There were no provisions of any kind for the complainant nor for the child. In the month of November/December 2015 the marriage of Mr. Pradeep, the brother-in-law of the complainant was celebrated at Ananthpur, and from there the complainant and the child went to the house at Peapully, Kurnool, but, the entire folk of the house refused to let the complainant and the child in the house. With great difficulty, the complainant and the child were admitted in the building, but, were confined to the veranda without any permit to use other part of the house. There was no entry even to the main hall of the house. For her needs, the complainant had taken help from the neighbours. The complainant was prohibited from using or entering the Kitchen, Bathroom, toilet and the utilities of the house. The complainant nor the child were fed with any food or other necessity. Even the milk for the child was refused and had to fetch from bakery. The complainant suffer all these treatment as she was from a Dalit Commune, which fact all the accused and their families knew very well. That, the entire house folk including the women and younger ones discriminated the complainant for her caste and creed. The complainant was very much 12 pained by the acts of accused No.1 to 4. Accused No.1 was a mute spectator and instead of helping her, supported his parents and relatives. The accused No.1 intentionally let her down in a situation, were his entire family was against the complainant. The complainant could understand that, everything happened, was under the consent and the support of accused No.1. The complainant told and conveyed everything that had happened to her mother, but she was aged and widow, was helpless. The life did go on with misery. That on 16.02.2016, unable to bear the harassment, the complainant took the medicines that were in the home to end her life and she became unconscious. She was unconscious till next day, but, the accused did not take the complainant to any hospital or clinic. On 17.02.2016, the Complainant's mother came to Hyderabad and brought her to Bangalore on 18.02.2016. For all these days the Complainant was exhausted so was the child. The child was fed under difficult conditions, but the accused No.1 had no kind heart either for the Complainant or for the child. That because the Complainant was under
dreadful conditions, the mother lost no time and brought her to Bangalore for treatment.
5. The Complainant submit that, after her coming to Bangalore she stayed with her mother and tried to contact the accused No.1, but, for assuring that, he would come to Bangalore to sort out the issues, did not come, instead, a notice dated: 01.04.2016 was received by the Complainant sent by the accused No.1 pleading and narrating all false things. The Complainant could understand that, the accused No.1 has different intentions and he is acting under the influence of accused No.2, 3 and other family members who by now had expressed that the Complainant is not acceptable to them. Communicating the true happenings, a reply was sent on 13.04.2016 to the accused No.1."
5. This Court has meticulously reviewed the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against the 13 petitioners. The crux of the complaint revolves around allegations of cruelty, dowry demands and discrimination based on caste purported primarily by accused No.1 and few instances at the hands of in-laws when they visited respondent No.2 and accused No.1 at Hyderabad. The central to the complaint is assertion by respondent No.2/wife that accused No.1 was persistently demanding dowry from her parents. On meticulous reading of the entire complaint, what can be gathered is that complaint paints a picture of tumultuous marital life of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 by suspicion, denial of basic freedom and instances of dowry demands and discrimination based on caste.
6. From the records, it is borne out that immediately after marriage, respondent No.2/complainant primarily resided separately from petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are in-laws who are based at Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Accused No.4/petitioner No.4 in Crl.P.No.7115/2019 is a 14 resident of Kurnool and there are no specific allegations after solemnization of marriage in 2012. The only vague allegations against accused No.4 is that he was part of the marriage talks and marriage ceremonies and there are allegations that he supported his sister i.e., petitioner No.3/accused No.3 regarding dowry demands. However, there are no specific allegations against accused No.4 in regard to cruelty or caste based atrocities.
7. Insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, the entire allegations in the complaint coupled with charge sheet materials lacks substantive evidence so as to proceed against accused No.4. The materials placed by the Investigating Officer does not indicate direct involvement by accused No.4 in the acts of cruelty or discrimination detailed in the complaint. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer's inquiry, spanning two years from the registration of the complaint, involved the examination of witnesses who testified to the harassment faced by respondent No.2 15 at the hands of the in-laws during their visits to Hyderabad. However, it is noted that these witnesses, although cited in the complaint, have not been named as witnesses in the charge.
8. This Court has to also examine the allegations insofar as in-laws are concerned. In the light of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court with all caution has examined the charge sheet materials to ascertain whether culpability is ascribed against in-laws based on prima facie materials presented.
9. First and foremost, the respondent No.2/complainant's marital life with accused No.1 spanned a duration of six years. While complaint is lodged in 2016, the allegations against in-laws primarily pertain to incidents surrounding dowry demands that purportedly occurred at the time of marriage in 2012. It is relevant to take cognizance of the temporal aspects of these accusations, as 16 they are rooted in events that transpired several years prior to filing of complaint in 2016. This temporal gap raised questions regarding the timeliness and relates to allegations vis-à-vis statutory provisions governing such matters.
10. Furthermore, on critical examination of complaint and charge sheet materials, reveals that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 never resided together with in-laws. This aspect is pivotal, as it pertains directly to the applicability of Section 498A of IPC which is predicated on the premise of cruelty or harassment inflicted upon a woman by her husband or her relatives "in connection with the marriage".
11. In the present case, absence of substantive allegations or evidence implicating in-laws in acts of cruelty or harassment against respondent No.2, coupled with temporal disparity between the alleged incidents and filing of complaint, militates against invocation of Section 498(A) 17 of IPC. The charge sheet materials prima facie do not establish a nexus between the in-laws actions and purported atrocities to warrant a trial against the in-laws.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court's power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assumes paramount importance. This provision empowers the Court to intervene when it deems fit to prevent abuse of legal process or miscarriage of justice. This Court has meticulously examined the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet materials. This Court is more than satisfied that the allegations insofar as accused Nos.2 to 4 lacks substantive merit and is not supported by any prima facie material to proceed against accused Nos.2 to 4. The allegations in the complaint coupled with charge sheet materials do not meet the legal threshold for invoking 498(A) of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act as well as provisions of Section 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, accused No.1 has 18 to face trial as there are specific allegations in the complaint relating to dowry demand and harassment at the hands of accused No.1.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.4621/2020 filed by accused No.1/husband is dismissed;
(ii) Crl.P.No.7115/2019 is allowed in part.
The proceedings pending in S.C.No.1359/2018 arising out of PCR.No.34/2017 on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judges and Special Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 323, 498(A) of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are quashed insofar as accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned;
19
(iii) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA