Karnataka High Court
Somashekarappa vs State By Channagiri Ps on 25 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29253
CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2023 C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12085 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4365/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. THIMAPPA
R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
2. SMT. VASANTHAMMA
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O H VENKATARAMANA
R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
3. SMT V CHANDRAKALA
Digitally signed by AGED 35 YEARS
PRAJWAL A W/O T PREMAKUMAR
Location: HIGH COURT R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
OF KARNATAKA CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
4. SRI MADHU @ MADHUKUMAR
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O H VENKATARAMANA
R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
5. SMT. POORNIMA
AGED 28 YEARS
W/O G.C. SOMASHEKAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29253
CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023
R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
6. SRI CHIDANANDA
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
7. KESHAVMURTHY
AGED 34 YARS
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
8. SMT PUSHPA @ PUSHPA AB
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O T BASAVARAJAPPA
R/AT ARASANGATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA D R., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHANNAGIRI P S
CHANNAGIRI - 577 213
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577213
REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SRI SOMASHEKAR G.C
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
CHELLAKERE TOWN CHELLAKERE
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
3. SRI HANUMAKKA
AGED 55 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29253
CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023
W/O LATE CHENNAPPA
R/AT SHILPASHREE APARTMENT
HOUSE, NO 14, HONGASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560 068
4. SMT PADMAVATHI G C
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O KARIBASAPPA
R/AT TYAVANAGI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G. RAVI KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC CHANNAGIRI DAVANGERE IN CHARGE SHEET NO.68/2022
REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.667/2022 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 341, 504, 323, 355, 354, 506 READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12085/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SOMASHEKARAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT SHILPASHREE
APARTMENT HOUSE, NO.14
HONGASANDRA
BANGALORE
AND ALSO PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHALLAKERE
TALUK, CHITRADURGA
2. SRI HANUMAKKA
W/O LATE CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT VALMIKI SOCIETY
JANATHA COLONY, CHALKERE
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29253
CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023
TOWN, CHITRADURGA DIST.
3. PADMAVATHI
W/O KARIBASAPPA H
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT ARISHINAGHATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
4. KARIBASAPPA H.
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT ARISHINAGHATTA
VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR, ADV. FOR
SRI.PRABHULINGA MURTHY, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE BY CHANNAGIRI PS
DAVANGER, REP BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SMT. POORNIMA
W/O SOMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT ARASANGHATTA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M. M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. BASAVARAPPA D. R., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.
P. C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.338/2021 IN
C.C.NO.471/2023 UNDER SECTION 498 A, 143, 147, 148, 354,
323,324, 504, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 OF
D.P. ACT PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC CHANNAGIRI OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE I.E.,
CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PASS
ANY OTHER ORDER COMMENSURATING WITH THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29253
CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN) Criminal Petition No.12085/2023 is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.471/2023 arising out of Crime No.338/2021 for the ssssoffences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 504, 143, 147, 148, 354, 323, 324 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'the D.P.Act') pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Channagiri, District: Davangere.
2. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 8, have filed Criminal Petition No.4365/2023 under Section 482 of Cr.PC. seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.667/2022 arising out of Crime No.339/2021 registered by Channagiri Police and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 323, 355, 354, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents in both cases and Smt.Anitha Girish, learned HCGP in Criminal Petition No.4365/2023 and Smt.Waheeda, learned HCGP in Criminal Petition No.12085/2023.
4. Case of the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.12085/2023 is that, a complaint was filed by Poornima, wife of first petitioner/accused No.1 alleging that she married petitioner about nine months prior to date of incident and after marriage, she herself and her husband were residing in Bangalore; at the time of marriage, Rs.10 lakhs was given in cash and 17 tolas of gold ornaments as dowry. Subsequently, accused No.1 stated to be insisted for additional dowry and he asked her to bring dowry he used harass her mentally and physically, therefore, about 15 days back, she came to her parents native place at Arashinaghatta. Hence, she was staying with her parents. On 15.09.2021, accused Nos.2 to 4 and other accused upto 10 persons came to their house, they picked up -7- NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023 quarrel and assaulted her and her father and when the same was questioned by brother and other relatives, all the accused persons abused her and assaulted her with blade and her husband kicked her stomach and caused grievous injuries. They went to hospital, took treatment and later complaint came to be filed. Police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed the petition challenging the charge sheet.
5. Sri.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the petitioners went to the house of in-laws only to bring back the wife of petitioner No.1; at that time, they picked up quarrel and assaulted him and the relatives, who came there to take his wife. Absolutely, there is no intention to assault or cause any injury. On the other hand, respondent No.2 and others have assaulted the petitioners and others. Hence, he has filed complaint to the Police. In view of filing of said complaint, as a counter blast, this complaint has been filed -8- NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023 by the wife of the petitioner No.1. Therefore, there is no material to frame the charges. Hence, he prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.
6. Sri.D.R.Basavarajappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has supported the case of the prosecution and contended that the accused demanded money and received cash as well as gold ornaments prior to the marriage and additional dowry was demanded by accused No.1 and thrown her out of the house and all the accused came and assaulted the complainant and her family members. Therefore, there is a material placed on record to frame charges against them and sought for dismissing the petition.
7. Smt.Waheeda, learned HCGP appearing for the State also supported the case of the prosecution contending that there is a prima facie material to show harassment to complainant and her family members for additional dowry and therefore, case is for trial. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023
8. The main crux of the case in Criminal Petition No.4365/2023 is that, the complaint filed by G.C.Somashekhar/respondent No.2, who is the husband of petitioner No.5/Poornima where he has stated in his complaint that petitioner No.5/Poornima and himself were residing in Bangalore and she went to her parents house to attend her brother's marriage, but she did not return, therefore, he came to take her back to matrimonial home, at that time, herself and her father abused the relatives and assaulted him and his family members and caused injuries. Hence, complaint came to be filed in Crime No.339/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 323, 355, 354, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 8 have filed Criminal Petition No.4365/2023 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
9. Sri.D.R.Basavarajappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that absolutely there is no material to place on record to frame the charges where
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023 the accused persons themselves filed the complaint that they came to the house of the petitioners and assaulted them. When such being the case, the complainant has filed the complaint as counter blast to the complaint filed by accused No.5 against husband and in-laws, therefore, he prays to quash the same.
10. Sri.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for complainant/Somashekar G.C. has supported the prosecution case contending that when himself and relatives went to the house of in-laws for bringing his wife, they assaulted them. Therefore, there is no material to framed the charges and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. Smt.Anitha Girish, learned HCGP also supported the case of the prosecution contending that there is material placed on record that there is a case and counter case filed against each other. The factum of incident is an admitted one. Therefore, who is the aggressor, is required to be considered by the Trial Court during trial. Therefore,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023 this Court cannot quash the proceedings. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
12. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides and also the learned Government Pleaders in both cases, it is pertinent to note that, accused No.1/Somashekar.G.C. married Poornima about nine months prior to the alleged incident. It is alleged in the complaint in Crime No.338/2021 that at the time of marriage, accused persons have demanded and received Rs.10 lakhs by cash and 17 tolas of gold ornaments as dowry and subsequently, accused No.1 and complainant were residing at Bangalore and wife of accused No.1 came to her parents' house to attend her brother's marriage and she did not go back. Hence, accused No.1 along with relatives came to the house of the complainant and during that time, there was a scuffle between both parties where the complainant and her father and the relatives were on one side, accused and his relatives, who came to the house of the complainant, on the other side, both
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023 quarreled with each other and both groups sustained injuries and both obtained treatment in the hospital and case and counter case were registered against each other. On wife's side, there were eight accused persons, who are before this Court and husband's side, there were ten accused persons, out of which four accused persons are before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
13. It is the settled position of law that when case and counter cases are registered in Crime No.338/2021 and Crime No.339/2021, when parties in both cases have sustained injuries, the fact remains is that, the incident is an admitted one. Therefore, the Court is required to consider and verify who is the aggressor for the offences. Such being the case, this Court cannot sit as a Trial Court to conduct a mini trial to verify who is the aggressor for the purpose of commission of offence. That apart, there is an allegation of demand and receipt of dowry, which was demanded and received prior to the marriage and it
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 12085 of 2023 attracts Section 3 of the D.P.Act and subsequently, accused No.1 demanded additional dowry, which attracts Section 4 of the D.P.Act against accused No.1. The fact remains that, the other accused/family members demanded and received dowry prior to the marriage which is said to be Rs.10 lakhs in cash and 17 tolas of gold ornaments. There is an allegation made by the husband in his complaint that she took back the money as well as the gold ornaments. Therefore, all these facts should be decided by the Trial Court where the disputed facts shall be decided by the Trial Court in both cases and it shall be tried by the same Judge and review whether there is material on record to frame the charges against the petitioners in both cases. Therefore, this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.4365/2023 and Criminal Petition No.12085/2023 are hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE KNM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8