Karnataka High Court
Nagamma Gaonkar vs State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.101594/2014
C/W CRL.P.NOS.101550/2014,
101595/2014, 101596/2014.
IN CRL.P.NO.101594/2014
BETWEEN :
SHAMEER GAONKAR S/O. LATE KAMALAKAR
GAONKAAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE
EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO.64, SMIG B
23RD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
5TH PHASE, BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SUMANGALA.A.CHAKALABBI,
ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ANKOLA POLICE
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
2. DEPPA D/O. GOVINDRAYA NAYAK
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL
2
R/O. HARSHA NIVASA KAKARMATA
ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.NARAYAN.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT DATED 25.09.2013, FIR AND
CHARGE-SHEET REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO.193/2013 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE,
PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC COURT, ANKOLA IN
C.C.NO.280/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
IN CRL.P.NO.101550/2014
BETWEEN :
NAGAMMA GAONKAR
W/O. LATE KAMALAKAR GAONKAR
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC:RTD.SCHOOL TEACHER
R/AT BEHIND KPTCL PURLAKKIBENA
POST VANDIGE ANKOLA
UTTAR KANNADA DIST.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SUMANGALA.A.CHAKALABBI,
ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ANKOLA POLICE
3
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
2. DEEPA D/O. GOVINDRAYA NAYAK
AGE: YEARS, OCC: NILL
R/O. HARSHA NIVASA KAKARMATA
ANKOLA, UTTARKANNADA DIST.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.NARAYAN.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
25.9.2013-26-10-13, FIR AND CHARGESHEET IN
C.C.280/14 PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC COURT
AT ANKOLA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
IN CRL.P.NO.101595/2014
BETWEEN :
CHARAN GAONKAR S/O. LATE KAMALAKAR
GAONKAAR, AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE
R/O. DELLA MERINDA,
OPP SHANTA BHAT HOSPITAL
CHURCH ROAD, SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SUMANGALA.A.CHAKALABBI,
ADVOCATE)
4
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ANKOLA POLICE
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
2. DEEPA D/O. GOVINDRAYA NAYAK
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. HARSHA NIVASA KAKARMATA
ANKOLA, UTTARKANNADA DIST.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.NARAYAN.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT DATED 25.09.2013, FIR AND
CHARGE-SHEET REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO.193/2013 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE,
PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC COURT, ANKOLA IN
C.C.NO.280/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
IN CRL.P.NO.101596/2014
BETWEEN :
NAVEEN GAONKAR
S/O. LATE KAMALAKAR GAONKAAR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE
R/O. EXCISE INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF SUPDT OF EXCISE
5
BURLHATTI VILLAGE, KOKATANUR POST
BELGAUM , POST VANDIGE ANKOLA
UTTARKANNADA DIST.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SUMANGALA.A.CHAKALABBI,
ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ANKOLA POLICE
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SMT. DEEPA D/O. GOVINDRAYA NAYAK
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. HARSHA NIVASA KAKARMATA
ANKOLA, UTTAR KANNADA DIST.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.NARAYAN.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
25.09.2013 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.193/2013
PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC, ANKOLA IN
C.C.NO.280/2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
6
: COMMON ORDER :
The petitioner in criminal petition No.101596/2014 filed by accused No.1 being the husband, criminal petition No.101550/2014 filed by accused No.2-the mother-in-law, criminal petition No.101595/2014 filed by accused No.3- brother-in-law and criminal petition No.101594/2014 filed by accused No.4 being the brother-in-law of the informant are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the basis of the first information lodged by respondent No.2 with Ankola Police Station, which was registered in crime No.193/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 406, 323, 307, 498(A), 120(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P.Act'), which is now pending in 7 C.C.No.280/2014, on the file of JMFC Court at Ankola.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 4 alleging commission of the above said offences. It is contended by the informant that she married accused No.1 on 04.07.2010. In fact he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and was taking treatment in Shreemata Mental hospital at Kundapur since 2003. By suppressing the said fact, accused No.1 married the informant. Even before getting married, accused have demanded and accepted Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry on 19.05.2010. The marriage was performed on 04.07.2010. Huge sums of money was spent by the informant and her family members. But the accused have again demanded Rs.4,00,000/- as additional dowry. 8 Accordingly, another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid on 02.07.2010. At the time of marriage, 70 grams of gold ornaments were given to the informant by her parents. The amount received as dowry was never deposited in the name of the informant in any banks as promised. In the meantime, the informant came to know that accused No.1 is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. Accused No.1 used to ill-treat the informant and on 08.02.2011 he assaulted her when she refused to cooperate for having sex with him. After this incident, the informant returned to her parents house and started residing there. On 06.08.2011 had accused No.1 came to the parental house of the informant and ill-treated her. Thereafter, he was sent back to his house. There was Panchayat in the village in the presence of the elders. The accused have agreed 9 to return Rs.5,00,000/- by saying that the same is deposited in the fixed deposit. However, they stated that the remaining sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is already spent. It was agreed in the Panchayat that the marriage will be dissolved in the Court of law. The accused neither returned the amount nor returned the gold ornaments. Moreover, accused No.1 married the informant by suppressing the material fact and thereby committed cheating. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, police have registered the case in crime No.193/2013, for the above said offence and took up investigation.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 420, 120B, read with Section 34 of IPC and 10 Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and registered C.C.No.280/2014, which is pending before the trial Court. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal complaint and the proceedings initiated against them by informant-respondent No.2.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Sumangala A Chakalabbi, for the petitioners and learned HCGP Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Narayan V.Yaji, for respondent No.2 in all the petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions submitted that there are absolutely no allegations against any of these petitioners for having committed any offences as alleged. The marriage between accused No.1 and the informant had taken place on 04.07.2010. The 11 demand and acceptance of the dowry as alleged by the informant is much before the date of marriage. The specific instances of committing the cruelty by accused No.1 is stated in the first information as on 08.02.2011 and 06.08.2011. Even as per the informant, the spouse were residing separately since August-2011.
6. It is stated that there was Panchayat where under it was agreed that the marriage is to be dissolved before the Court of law. Accordingly, the wife, who is respondent No.2 herein filed matrimonial case in M.C.No.16/2013, before the Court at Kumata, seeking annulment of marriage. The same was subsequently transferred to the Court at Ankola and renumbered as M.C.No.1/2017. The said M.C.No.1/2017 is allowed and the decree for divorce was granted on the ground that accused No.1 was suffering from 12 mental illness. The informant challenged the said decree on the ground that she was not granted the permanent alimony while granting divorce. Accused No.1 also challenged the said decree of granting divorce, which is now pending before the Division Bench of this Court.
7. Learned counsel submits that, strangely this complaint was came to be filed on 25.9.2013 without there being any cause of action. None of the penal provisions could be invoked on the basis of the allegations made in the first information. But the investigating officer proceeded to file charge sheet only on the ground that there was demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused before marriage. Apart from that there is absolutely no allegation against accused Nos.2 to
4. Even though, there is allegation against accused No.1, the said incidents were said to have 13 taken place on 08.02.2011 and 06.08.2011. Therefore, it is clear that the criminal complaint was came to be lodged only to pressurize the accused to terms as there is demand for payment of money towards permanent alimony. Since, it is the complaint filed misusing the provisions of law in clear abuse of process of the Court, the criminal proceedings is to be quashed. Accordingly, prays for allowing the petitions.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is clear allegation of demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused. It is stated that initially Rs.4,00,000/- was paid as dowry and subsequently another Rs.4,00,000/- was demanded and accepted. 70 grams of gold ornaments were also given to the informant. 14 There is specific reference to the incident dated 08.02.2011 and 06.08.2011. Petitioners have deliberately suppressed the material fact that accused No.1 was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The accused have conspired together and committed cheating. They have misappropriated the amount of dowry and the gold ornaments. There was also assault by accused No.1 and an attempt on the life of the informant. There was cruelty committed to the informant by all the accused and therefore, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Since, there are prima-facie materials available on record, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petitions.
15
9. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submits that on the basis of the first information lodged by respondent No.2, the FIR was registered, investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet is also filed. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Under such circumstances, appropriate orders may be passed.
10. Perused the materials on record in the light of the rival submissions.
11. The point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.280/2014 on the file of learned JMFC Court, Ankola initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"16
12. My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
13. The admitted facts of the case are that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 04.07.2010. It is stated that since 2011, the informant is residing separately from accused No.1 and she is in her parents house. The first information categorically states that accused No.1 is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, which fact said to have been suppressed at the time of performing the marriage. There is reference to the incident dated 08.02.2011, wherein it is stated that accused No.1 assaulted the informant when she refuse to cooperate with him in sexual act. It is also stated that initially she believed that the mental illness suffered by accused No.1 could be cured. But however, when it is learnt that it is not 17 a curable, she returned to her parents house and started residing there. Even when the incident dated 06.08.2011 said to have committed by accused No.1, he had came to the parental house of the informant and tried to strangulate the neck of informant in the midnight. Subsequently, he was sent back to his house. Even according to the informant, there were several panchayats in this regard, wherein it is stated that accused have agreed to return Rs.5,00,000/-, which was said to be deposited in the bank. It was also agreed between the parties to dissolve the marriage through the Court of law. There is also reference to exchange of legal notices between the parties.
14. Admittedly, respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.16/2013, which is subsequently renumbered as M.C.No.1/2017, seeking annulment of marriage with accused No.1, which 18 is already decreed and there is dissolution of the marriage. However, both the parties are challenging the said decree, which is pending before this Court. In the meantime, this first information was came to be filed on 25.09.2013. Even if the first information filed by the informant is taken into consideration as it is, there is absolutely no reason assigned as to why after laps of more than 2 years, the first information was came to be filed. Even according to the informant, last incident that had taken place was on 06.08.2011, but the complaint was came to be filed on 25.09.2013.
15. Apparently, there is reference to the panchayats held in the village and the so called admission on the part of the accused regarding receipt of the dowry and agreeing to return the same. Since, the accused have not returned any 19 amount, it appears that the first information was came to be filed only to pressurize the accused. I do not find any other reason for the informant to file the first information. Even though, an attempt is made to convince the Court regarding invoking the penal provisions i.e., Sections 417, 420, 406, 423, 307, 498(A), 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, there is absolutely no specific allegations with regard to any of such penal provisions. Even though, it is stated that on 08.02.2011 and on 06.08.2011 accused No.1 ill-treated the informant and assaulted her, the complaint was not filed for about two years. Even though, it is contended that there was suppression of materials facts while getting married the informant, immediately after the marriage she came to know about this fact, she herself said to have taken him to the 20 doctors under the hope that the same would be cured and finally, as per decision of the panchayat, matrimonial petition is filed for annulment/dissolution of the marriage. Admittedly the decree of dissolution of the marriage is passed by the trial Court, which is under challenge by both husband and wife. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 is seeking permanent alimony from accused No.1. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal proceeding is initiated only to pressurize the petitioners assumes importance. When it is prima-facie shown that criminal proceedings is initiated only to pressurize the accused to agree for the terms, it amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, 21 I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceeded to pass the following.
ORDER The criminal petitions are allowed. The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.280/2014 on the file of learned JMFC Court, Ankola initiated against the petitioners in all the petitions is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM/-