Karnataka High Court
Smt. Usha @ Usharani vs State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT or-' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 29'-*1 day of March, 28 §.}~~- A' BE3FO'R.E-I Q THE HONZBLE MR JUSTICE K
Criminal _Pe:-ztraogmo 56i:'.9,_;g2o10'75 ' _ .
Misc Cri No 49-54; of 2010. 4 Criminal ..Pgr.itio§1 N9 55?1'9 052010 BETWEEN: H SM'? 1:313;-\, .1:JsI~m.;2AN:-V W/O _P_A%EN'E.}_R£r\ ISRASAIJ __ AGED AB_«:)'15fF 3?. YEARS " _ R/AT E{z'.\L}3£«:§JRU VH.1.'AG33 £\:IA1"" 'vAl;;L1 'mi-':;'UK'--., ' EVIANDYA"fJ1S71'R1C'1'.._ . _' PE'1'I'I'IONI;3R ' ' ' =_['€.OM_MON"EN MISC CRLSLCRL PETITION] % . B K Swamy, Adv} 1:'; V T_ T.S':tafi':%i"QJ§i'"KARNA'r'AKA ._ %. REP';...13x*.;v0NAV1:\:AKERE A ' POLECE; S'E"A'i'EO'.N' ':*E_i3*1URi'1:;aLU§< TUMKUR D§S'E'R}C"§"
MS N §'T.AI.,PANA 'NZ OM SA'£"'E§3S{-E AGES: ABOUT 3% YEARS {EUNGURUMALE ROAD NQNAV1 NAKERE'; 'l7OWN Ti PTU R TA'E,I.I K
3.? MKUR DE S'i"?{5:§ C31.' KARNAKAKA . . . .RI§SPONDEZN'I7S iC€)E\/1M{).?'\E IN MISC CR1, 82 CR1, PE'1'§'FIONl CRIMINAL PE'FI'I'ION ES FILED UNDER SEC"1'iON 482"--OF' TRI:
CODE OF CRIMENAL PROCEDURE. PRAYIRG 'F0 QUAE3}*i. THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC N0 544 OF 2010 NOW PENDING ('IN'THE"EjII,E OF RIB: ADDL CIVIL JUDGE [JR DNI & JMFC, '[TPI'[}1?;'iN._S'Q_ FAR AS THE PE'i'i'i"EONER IS CONCERNED AND 300.. " " .0 MISC CRL N0 4904 OF 2010 IS FILED LI;sI'Ij1I;R:'sF,"('R'ION 482 . _ OR THE CODE OF CRIMINAL, RROOE,I:»'UR_E:;'PRIMIIIG fI'fO_ STA"? THE', . PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PE"i'E'E'10_NER~1N' CC N-0 'I344; OF '$01.0 NOW PENDING ON 'I'I~iE FILE OF THE, A'DE)1},- _OIvII., JLID~G"£;. [.}RDN}' .3; JMFC, 'I'£P'I'UR.
CRIMINAL PEYFITION 8: MISGCRI, ARI'é'(t,OMI'i\{G ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, 'I'I_~IE CODR.::'\A]vIA13I§, f1'RE"FO.I_,LOWING:
_-------.:I_.-----.--------.------._.-.--., In this peti_t1'-QI1 CrPC is by the petiti0i*I_er,--.whO"uI.I'aS"b§§€I1 ar1"ayed as fourth accused in CC N0 544 0f"'f2,4OOV9,VVV'O1'aiV'Vthefifilé or Add} cm: Judge (Jr Dn) & 'V'I'i~ptur,v"h=aG_GOI.:Ight for quashing Of the prosecution 'against her.
tf €II3pOI1(1€}'].t herein is the Wife Of the eider '.vbrOt}'Ig..r Detitioner harem}. Second rt-:spOr1derIt filed a :~I%fpIfi\ffé::te Campiaim under St-:c:tiOn 200 CrPC before the Add}. Civil Judge (J1? DD.) 8; JMFC, Tiptur, "in PCR NO 99 Of 2009 /'2 ageiirisi; her lmsbazici, fatl1e:'~i11~laxv¥ 1"f10l.lf1€'.I"?lI1~l£7:W', sister» inéiaw and broi.her~in~lawg alleging the offences puiii-shable under Sections 4-98~A, 323 and 506 IPC read wi_t'i1 .Sei:_j;ti£::1s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 l
3. On p1'esentai.io11 of the]: V magistrate referred the same under' to the jurisdictional police for submit a report. Based on tlie._l":eaic--l: rggfelfegseeepoliee registered a case in Crime No 64 iip investigation.
After competiiig investigating officer has filetjlmtllhe the petitioner and other accused-perslons"i5or_l{h_e*efibresaid offences. The leaned magis.tratel'afiler..i'alfin§"'llcognizanee of the offences, has l"'--orde--recEJ'i'sse.e of siilrfirlnons to the accused pe::'s03;1s. On the of the same, the petitioner has presented eetition on the ggrouiiel that the allegations ll""-__ll"nj1ade llinlthe complaint as well as the materials Collected the invesi;ig'a.i.ioi'1 and produced before the leaned
-H-iaigistraie .»':1l.€)I1g with the charge sheet, does not, prima /:/I /'/ 4 fa;.:':ie% make cut" any C2188 zigziinut, the pefiiiionézr and that the p}."GS€£'C1Iti€)I1 launched against. her is friv01~:jus and vexaiious and that it is initiated as a C0unt=erw~b1;1wS§_f§u'fjO petiticm ffled by The husband of the L.;1i1}oI'Tc:(§ under Section 13(1}(ia) of the "
therefore the prosectuiioza launched".ag'ainst?;i§r,:js liégbiis be quashed.
4. I have heani .V for petitioner and perused the_r€C0rds...:._
5. The Apgig £1-:'c% céisév"('§f'STATE OF HARYANA vs Bf:T_.AJAN }LA;L: '114;fR:::'1--992 sc 604] has set out the circumstaf1:_;<§s_ u 12._dé3f "which High Courts, in exercise of u"1:dVer x'ScV::tj_Q_13. 482 CIPC, Could quash criminal The principles Laid down by the Apex Court in" the said --E1_e{:'isi0n are as under:
{.1 E/Vhere the aiiegaiions made in the first " . information report or the Complaint, everl if they are taken at lgheirface value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any Qffence or make out a case againsiu the accused;
{2} (3) {4} I (5) 5 Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable Q1'/%€'f1C€,jltslifyiiigxl an investigation by police officers ur-'i_aZe_r'-«.V s. 156(1), CrPC except under an order 5 Magistrate usithin the purview of it CrPC ;
Where the ur'icor1tro,oeri'edfiv ualleg'atton's___ , i made in the FIR or eoniplaint 'and. the-, * ' evidence collected in support of ihef;;an1e_,§ do not disclose ii*ie""=commission_"_:of':any oflence and make out:'vva-caseogainstii the accused; ' R" " ' W/here. the allegations iri_lV't['.i;e, FIR do not constitute :i'a"'»-cogrttfiable. .Vo','f']er1ce but co;=is'n§.t;jte only a' nevi'-'c.ogn_tzéabie Qfferlce, ._i10"~lI1i:i€S'fI:Q'f1i'l()i?._.iS--_'péfl'I'litl€d by a police loflicer Lo'i£sh,outjvs.ar'aorder" of a Magistrate "co::1,te_n:plat'ed «under 5.155(2) of the Corie;
the."-alluegattons made in the FIR or corripl»ain_t_j' are so absurd and inherently "improbable on the basis of which no 'prudent person can ever reach a just 'conclusion that there is sufficient ground ' --.foriIproceedir1g against the accused: {Sf "viii/'here there is an express legal bar erigrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned { under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a / 6 specific previsiort in the Cede or the Act eeneemedt providing efficacious redress? for the grievance Qf the aggrieved _parI.:;;-..9 Cmd T ('7) Where a erintinal _pI'oceedir§g mangfestlg attended with maze and/or where the ,n:*oeeed'iji1g':. maliciously instituted, trf_iti't a,_r1~i'aiter§0_I""
motive for wreaking "::ger'.a_geanCe 'On.' the--. °v"
accused and with _a L%z3ew te..spite_h,im'du.e1--. to_priUai.e ar1dper::_;ez1algft;dge,_
6. Perusal of the aA14ie;§ati'enseAvfnade-.in the eempiaint as Wei} as the evidence e.011eet.et1 '°the'~:V.i;3*feStigating officer eiuring p1jedj1;1'ee't,i'*""'t)efe:'e the iearned magistrate a1eng_:Wit'§1 «1.;h"e Sheet, prime. faeie, make out atease' a,ga1.::'1st"th'e_:t)eti'tiener for the offences alleged. There is" force in the contention of the 1earI:1etjt"e0t1fi.Se~1tvfegjthe petitioner that the material on 'rfeeord--.deeeeV hot indicate specific overt acts on the "part of the"'§5et'iti--e1jeé5*.V A perusal of the statements of various witmeseee recorded durirzg the course of investigatien wfeiitci, prirnafaetet indicate the overt acts committed by " the petitiener herein. The grotlnds on which preseetltion {Mt IN.
7 is sought to be qtlashed EH6: all in the nature of deferxees, that may be taken up by the petitioner during ttlie,Ttri21l, 011 such grounds, this couzt in e:x:ercise of l;3{1x%:'e3f*-i;;:tflVCler Section 482 CFPC C'.E11"1l10i quash the prosee1,1t1o;1' :§'.§?,:l'L1l.lf1Cllbl'Cl€l.Vb Therefore, I find no ground to T launched against the petitioner.
7. Learned C0'unsel:--*for ha'sv-"felled on the decision of Andhra in the Case of SHAIK ea, OTHERS vs [goth cm. LJ(NOC) 89 (AP)]. """ in this decision is not geI1_eralzprln.--ciVple, been stated in this decision is an alA]egatioti of eriuedltyllétsrtci demand of dowry against the ll.°petit*ior1e1*ts,"l'..who lviifiefve sisters of the husband of the 'eeo113;3lalfia,.rit~w1'.fe, being general and omnibus allegations and-~..thev_vsistfefls being residents of different localities away .u"""-dfrona place of oomplamant and her husband, _ ll:-e§gtsti"at,i_on of e1'imi1'1al ease against them would be an ll -»:»:fi;)use of the process of the court. Each case will have to ,/2 Ex /. s f "[4-'"r »-V' 8 be Considered an the basis of the material ewailabie 01':
_re:::s1'd of that case. Having regard to the méfiferiais svailabis In the presexit case, it car1n0t be {ha prosecution Eaunched against the petitiOIiC..1T_,i_S»~--..aEi.A_1E1b'usé'Of ' the process of court. Therefoxfs, drawn from the said decision.' V 'V . u n V. V _
8. In this View of the :natté3r!:I»t"inci. I10: 'quaSIVlV the prosscution 1a1;14j;1chef;EV""':_ Lpetiti0I1er.
Accordingiy this crimin r.
9. In Vi€W itself, Misc Cr} stay does not survive for c0nsiderati'o1'1A'and i._tu:1_s a(:aé'_:0rdir1g1y dismissed.
is 3%;
E3333