Karnataka High Court
Dr. Pramod Shivashankar vs The State Of Karnataka, on 7 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100170 OF 2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100171 OF 2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100170 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. DR. PRAMOD SHIVASHANKAR NIJAMKARI @ KALAL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: DATAR COLONY, OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, RAICHUR,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR.
2. SMT.PADMAVATHI W/O SHIVASHANKAR
NIJAMKARI @ KALAL,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: DATAR COLONY, OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, RAICHUR,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR.
3. SHIVASHANKAR S/O HEROJIRAO
NIJAMKARI @ KALAL,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER,
R/O: DATAR COLONY, OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, RAICHUR,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR.
4. SMT.SUMAN W/O KIRAN MOTIKARE,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: DATAR COLONY, OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, RAICHUR,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR.
:2:
5. HARISHKUMAR S/O SHIVASHANKAR
NIJAMKARI @ KALAL,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: DATAR COLONY, OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, RAICHUR,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR.
6. SUNILKUMAR S/O SHIVASHANKAR
NIJAMKARI @ KALAL,
AGE: 32 YEARS,OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR,
R/O: DATAR COLONY, OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, RAICHUR,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.S. H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BAILHONGAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SUSHMA D/O SHIVAJI PARANDEKAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: HULLA CHAWL, BAILHONGAL,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1)
(BY SRI.SUNIL DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 15.6.2016 PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC BAILHONGAL AT BAILHONGAL IN C.C.NO. 677 OF 2016
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 496, 509 AND 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, THE COPY
OF ORDER IS PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO. 1.
:3:
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100171 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
DR. PRAMOD SHIVASHANKAR NIJAMKARI @ KALAL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: DATAR COLONY,OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, RAICHUR,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.H.MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BAILHONGAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,DHARWAD.
2. SUSHMA D/O SHIVAJI PARANDEKAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: HULLA CHAWAL, BAILHONGAL,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
(BY SRI. SUNIL DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 22.6.2016 PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC BAILHONGAL AT BAILHONGAL IN C.C.NO. 696 OF 2016
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 417 OF THE IPC, THE COPY OF ORDER PRODUCED AT
DOCUMENT NO. 1.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:4:
ORDER
The complainant in both the petitions i.e., respondent No.2 is one and the same and the petitioner No.1 in both the petitions is also the same person. The materials relied upon by both the sides in respect of both the petitions are one and the same. Therefore, both these petitions are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order in order to avoid repetition of the discussion.
2. Criminal Petition No.100170 of 2017 is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Bailhongal, in C.C.No.677 of 2016, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 496, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Criminal Petition No.100171 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the order dated :5: 22.06.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bailhongal, in C.C.No.696 of 2016 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and registering the case as against the petitioner in the said petition.
4. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in both the petitions that respondent No.2/complainant i.e., Dr. Sushma D/o Shivaji Parandekar, who is Doctor by profession, lodged the complaint making the averments that she is working as Doctor at Bailhongal and on 01.11.2015 her engagement ceremony took place with petitioner/Dr.Pramod Shivashankar Nijamkari @ Kalal in the presence of elders at Suhana Marriage hall for which their parents have spent Rs.5 to 6 Lakh. The further averments that after two months of engagement Dr.Pramod Shivashankar Nijamkari @ Kalal got Government job and that he cancelled the engagement with her and has intimated her through message and also their parents have intimated through telephone and that :6: the father of the complainant had written a letter requesting the mother of Dr.Pramod not to cancel the marriage, because it is going to affect the carrier of her daughter. In spite of the same they cancelled the marriage. The further allegation that petitioner/Dr.Pramod is engaged to another girl after getting the Government job, has deceived the complainant and hence, she requested for action against said Dr.Pramod.
5. The further averments made in the private complaint that as per the engagement, Dr.Pramod and his family members demanded Rs.2,10,000/- as dowry, two pairs of clothes and Rs.50,000/- towards the utensils. On the date of engagement ceremony, the arrangement for the meals was made by the complainant and her family members. The marriage date was also fixed on 29.04.2016. After fixing the said date, the complainant and her family members booked the hall i.e. Gokak, Shubham Garden by paying Rs.40,000/- and it was reserved. But the averments goes to show that accused :7: persons cancelled the said venue and they have demanded more amount of Rs.5 lakhs and told that they are going to perform the marriage at Raichur and in that regard the Choultry, which was reserved was cancelled, and even there is averment in the private complaint that if the complainant did not pay Rs.5 lakhs as demanded, then the complainant and her family members have to perform the marriage at their own cost. The further averments go to show on 14.03.2016 the mother of the complainant addressed a registered letter to petitioner No.1 and his family members requesting them not to cancel the engagement, otherwise it will adversely affect the future of their daughter, and they have already spent considerable amount in the matter. The further averments at paragraph No.8 of the private complaint also goes to show that after the engagement, accused No.1 used to send SMS through the mobile phone and because of that reason the complainant suffered lot in her life and the accused persons spoiled the future life of the complainant. Therefore, it is mentioned that even the complaint was :8: also lodged on 05.04.2016 before the police and as the police have not taken any action in the matter, complainant was constrained to file the private complaint before the Court.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of both the petitions, so also the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/complainant and the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State.
7. Counsel for the petitioners in respect of both the petitions made the submission that it is no doubt true, earlier such engagement was entered into, but because of unavoidable reasons it came to be cancelled. Learned counsel made the submission that the said cancellation was in the presence of the elders and the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was agreed to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2/complainant. Hence, he made the submission that, when the expenses which was said to :9: have been made by the complainant side has been already made good by agreeing to pay Rs.1,50,000/-. There is no question of respondent No.2/complainant or her family members sustaining monetary loss because of the said engagement. He also made the submission that looking to the alleged offences in Crl.P.100170/2017 i.e., the offence under Section 496, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC is concerned, learned counsel made the submission that looking to the complaint averments, absolutely there is no material placed by the respondent No.2/complainant to attract the said offences. Counsel also made the submission that even with regard to the alleged offence under Section 417 of the IPC in the connected petition i.e., Crl.P.100171/2017, there is no material placed by the complainant. Hence, it is his contention that only because the engagement, which was taken place earlier, has been cancelled subsequently, it cannot be said that petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Therefore it is only because of the vengeance such complaint came to be filed and the said complaint is also with the malafide intention. : 10 : Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow both the petitions and to quash the proceedings.
8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/complainant in respect of both the petitions made the submission that the engagement ceremony is admitted by the other side. It is also his contention that subsequently when the accused/petitioner Dr.Pramod got the Government job, they started to demand more amount i.e., Rs.5 lakhs and on that ground they have cancelled the engagement. He also made the submission that because of such engagement the complainant's family is put to financial burden, they have already booked the hall by paying Rs.40,000/-. Learned counsel made the submission that complainant produced the receipt books for reserving the hall and for making the payment of the amount also. He also made the submission, that looking to the contentions raised in the private complaint, that after the engagement the petitioner/accused No.1 Dr.Pramod started talking with the : 11 : complainant and he used to send the messages over phone, in this connection, learned counsel made the submission, that the C.D. is also produced before the Court, which clearly goes to show what type of messages are sent, which affected the carrier of the complainant. Hence, he submitted that, when once in the presence of all the persons such engagement ceremony was performed and subsequently, when it was cancelled it definitely affects the future marriage prospect of the complainant and it cannot be said that it will be compensated only by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1, so also his family members have committed the alleged offences. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly appreciated the material both oral and documentary, so also the sworn statement of the complainant and her mother, then took the cognizance of the offences and issued the process. Hence, the learned counsel submitted these are not the matters to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing : 12 : the proceedings. Hence, he submitted to reject both the petitions.
9. Learned HCGP during the course of his arguments made his submission that the material placed by the complainant side by way of oral as well as the documentary, prima facie goes to show the petitioners committed the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that the Trial Court properly appreciated materials and took the cognizance of the offences. Hence, he also submitted that there is no merit in both the petitions and same are to be rejected.
10. I have perused the grounds urged in the petitions and also the FIR, complaint and the contents of the private complaint, the documents produced, which is said to have been executed for the cancellation of the said marriage engagement and fixing the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the complainant and her family members.
: 13 :
11. Looking to the averments in the private compliant, whatever the contentions raised in the private complaint are supported by the documentary material. The complainant produced the receipts for having spent the amount, because of the engagement ceremony. They have also produced the receipts and it is contended that even the C.D. is also produced with regard to the SMS sent by the petitioner No.1 Dr.Pramod. Therefore, looking to these materials which are referred in the private complaint and supported by the documentary material, they clearly goes to show that firstly there was a engagement and subsequently the same came to be cancelled. There are serious allegations made in the private complaint that because of such SMS messages, which petitioner No.1 Dr.Pramod has sent to the complainant, has ruined the future life of the complainant.
12. Therefore all such things which are pleaded in the complaint and about which it is stated that the CD which is also produced before the Court ought to be : 14 : considered by the Court during the course of the trial and looking to the materials it cannot be said that the case of the complainant is totally groundless or it is without any prima facie material and it is the abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, no grounds are made out to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings, accordingly both the petitions are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-