Karnataka High Court
Shri.Pravin Kumar S/O Birendar Yadav vs Smt.Dolly W/O Parvin Kumar Yadav on 18 July, 2022
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101266 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101266 OF 2019 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI.PRAVIN KUMAR S/O BIRENDAR YADAV
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: 1ST FLOOR,
BLOCK NO.F3 SECTOR NO.82,
VATIKA, INDIA NEXT CITY,
GURGAON, PIN CODE: 122051.
2. SHRI.BIRENDAR S/O LATE BHOLA RAM YADAV
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER,
R/O: PO BHORA KALAN,
CHITRASEN DHANI,
TECH PATUADI, DIST: GURGAON,
HARYANA-122413.
3. SMT.URMILA W/O BIRENDAR YADAV
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: 1ST FLOOR, NO.F3 SECTOR NO.82,
VATIKA, INDIA NEXT CITY,
Digitally signed
by GURGAON, PIN CODE:122051.
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD FOR SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.DOLLY W/O PARVIN KUMAR YADAV
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: ASI IN CISF,
R/O: GURUSHREE BUILDING,
-2-
CRL.P No. 101266 of 2019
2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
KALYAN NAGAR, DHARWAD-580007,
NOW WORKING AS ASI IN GOA AIRPORT,
STATE OF GOA. PIN CODE 403103
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
HUBLI NORTH SUB-DIVISION REPTED.BY ADDL.SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ROHIT S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN P.C.NO.70/2018 (WOMEN P.S. HUBLI NORTH SUB-
DIVISION IN CR. NO.0052/2018) ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC II-COURT, DHARWAD FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 323, 420, 504, 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard Sri.Naveen Chatrad for Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Rohit S Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State.
-3-CRL.P No. 101266 of 2019
2. Though this petition is listed for admission, with the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"To allow this criminal petition and quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in P.C.No.70/2018 (Women P.S. Hubli North Sub-Division in Cr. No.0052/2018) on the file of the II-Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC II-Court, Dharwad for the offences P/u/s 498-A, 323, 420, 504, 506 of IPC."
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A private complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.1 herein against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, which was registered in Crime No.52/2018 by the Women Police, Hubballi North Sub-division, Dharwad District. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that on 10.07.2016, respondent No.1 married petitioner No.1 and at that juncture a Skoda car was given along with gold and silver ornaments as dowry. Subsequent -4- CRL.P No. 101266 of 2019 thereto, since petitioner No.1 was working in Delhi, respondent No.1 joined him and they led a happy married life for a brief period. Subsequent thereto, there was a demand for additional dowry and in that regard, there was physical and mental harassment to the complainant. Complaint also reveal that Rs.5 lakhs was demanded which was met by the father of the complainant and again another Rs.35,000/- was also paid as additional dowry. Despite the same, harassment continued which resulted in filing of the complaint. The private complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and thereafter Mahila Police registered PCR No.70/2018. Referring the complaint filed by the complainant is under challenge in this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Naveen Chatrad for Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that without proper application of mind, mechanically the learned Magistrate -5- CRL.P No. 101266 of 2019 has referred the matter to the police and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, Sri.Rohit S Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the matter is only referred to the police and the police would definitely investigate the matter and file appropriate report before the Court and if the petitioners are not guilty of the offences alleged against them, suitable report would also be filed by the police. Therefore, it is too premature for this Court to exercise the power vested with it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and thus, sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Perused the materials on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.
8. Admittedly, after the marriage only for a brief period the parties lived happily, thereafter there is specific allegation of demand for additional dowry which was also complied by the father of the complainant in a sum of Rs.5,35,000/-. Subsequent thereto, there was no proper -6- CRL.P No. 101266 of 2019 treatment to the complainant which resulted in complainant issuing a legal notice on 12.03.2018 to the petitioners herein. A private complaint also came to be filed which was registered in PC No.70/2018. Prima facie, complaint averments reveal the details of household articles and car that was given at the time of marriage and so also, the harassment imparted to respondent No.1 by the petitioners herein. The said complaint was also referred to the police for investigation by exercising the powers vested with the Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Mahila Police registered the case and are investigating the matter.
9. At this stage, expressing any opinion would definitely prejudice the rights of the parties at the time of investigation. This Court cannot also hold a mini trial to find out veracity of the allegations made against the petitioners herein by respondent No.1 and the grounds urged by the petitioners.
-7-CRL.P No. 101266 of 2019
10. Suffice to say that the material available on record at this stage would make out a prima facie case for referring the matter to the police by the learned Magistrate.
11. The allegations in the complaint are serious and therefore, it is not a case where reference has resulted in abuse of process of court. Hence, the following:
ORDER Petition is dismissed.
However, this order shall not come in the way of petitioners filing appropriate petition, if an adverse report is filed against them.
SD/-
JUDGE SH