1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.872 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
NANDINI
W/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
KABBALIGERE VILLAGE
KONANUR HOBLI
ARKALGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF:
CHIKKAMAGGE
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI POST
ARKALGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVIKUMAR N.R., ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KONANUR PS
ARKALGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE
2
2. SUNITHA
W/O GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT KABBALLIGERE VILLAGE
KONNANUR HOBLI
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP II FOR R1;
SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.439/2016 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALGUD,
HASSAN AND THE CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC R/W SECTIONS 3, 4
OF D.P. ACT AT ANNEXURE – C AND D TO THE
PETITION IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the
materials available on record.
2. It is the fundamental basic concept of the
criminal jurisprudence, that if reading of the
complaint and other materials available on record or
3
if any charge sheet is filed, after going through the
charge sheet, if the Court finds that there are no
allegations which are sufficient to constitute any
such offences alleged, investigation or the proceeding
cannot be continued, the same is liable to be
quashed. With this basic principle, I have examined
the materials on record.
3. The second respondent in this case
Smt.Sunitha has lodged a complaint before the first
respondent – police, making allegations that she was
given in marriage to accused No.1 by name Girisha.
At that time, said Girisha and his family members
have demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as dowry
and also taken that amount and 50 grams of gold.
For about 7 to 8 months, husband and wife were
living together happily with each other. Thereafter, it
is further alleged that, Girisha and his family
members started demanding dowry. In this context,
it is alleged that said Girisha, his mother and others
4
were abused her and assaulted her. In this context,
it is also further stated that she consumed
insecticides once and she was rescued by her
husband. It is further alleged that the petitioner who
is arraigned as accused No.6 who was the resident of
the same village and some other villagers had also
come to the house and told the complainant to
remove her mangalya and go back to her parental
house. Except this one sentence, there is no other
allegation made against the petitioner as such. The
charge sheet papers disclose the description of
accused No.6. It is categorically stated that she is the
wife of one Kalegowda and permanent resident of
Chikkamagge village, Doddamagge Hobli in
Arkalgudu Taluk, Hassan district. The police have
also invoked the provisions under Sections 498A and
504 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
5
4. As I have noted, except the above said one
sentence, no other allegations are available, so as to
constitute any offences under Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act or under Sections 498A and
504 of IPC. Therefore, even translating the entire
charge sheet materials in the evidence at this stage
there is absolutely no material to connect this
petitioner to attract the above said offences.
5. Hence, I have no hesitation to allow this
petition, sofar as this petitioner is concerned. Hence,
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The case in CC No.439/2016 on the file of
the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Arkalgudu for the offences under Sections
498A and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
6
Act, 1961 and all further proceedings therein
are quashed sofar as this petitioner is
concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
