Sri. K.N. Subramanian vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2018








1. Sri K.N. Subramanian
Aged about 65 years
S/o late Narayana Iyer

2. Mrs. Lakshmi Subramanian
W/o K.N. Subramanian
Aged about 60 years

Both are residing at
#2/20, Mukund Housing Society
Gavanpada, Mulund East
Mumbai-400 081.
(By Sri Vijaykumar Prakash, Advocate)


1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Halasur Gate Women’s Police Station
Bangalore-560 002.
Now represented by The State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001.

2. Mrs. Priya Ramanathan
D/o R.V. Ramanathan
Aged about 29 years
Flat No.102, Elan Aster Apartments
2nd Cross, Papaiah Reddy Lane
Hanumappa Road, New Thippasandra
Bangalore-560 075.

(By Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1;
Sri Siji Malayil, Advocate for R2)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 27.02.2017
passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
at Bengaluru in Crime No.13/2016 (CC No.8305/2017)
whereby the Hon’ble Court was pleased to take
cognizance of the offences punishable under
498(A) of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act as against the present petitioners.

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:-


Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent



2. Perused the records. Records disclose that the

second respondent herein lodged a complaint before the

jurisdictional Magistrate, i.e., 6th Additional CMM,

Bengaluru, making allegations against the petitioners for

the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘DP Act’ for

short). It appears, the learned Magistrate has referred

the said complaint for investigation and to report. The

police have now filed the charge sheet against the

accused persons for the aforesaid offences and on the

basis of which the learned Magistrate has taken

cognizance against the accused persons. The said order

is under challenge before this Court in this petition

seeking quashing of the registration of a criminal case in


3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that, much earlier to lodging of the complaint, second

respondent has also filed a petition in

C.Misc.No.219/2015 under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short). But the

material facts with regard to demand and payment of

dowry has not been pleaded under the DV Act. Further,

he contends that even on perusal of the entire averments

in the charge sheet, there are no allegations made which

are sufficient to attract Section 498A of IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of the DP Act. Therefore, he pleads for quashing

of the proceedings.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second

respondent submits that, on overall reading of the

complaint and charge sheet papers, it discloses that, the

second respondent was humiliated by accused Nos.1

to 3. Even much prior to the marriage there was a

demand of certain brass and copper articles, etc. Even

after the marriage, they started demanding dowry as well

as they continued to humiliate the complainant by

taunting her by saying that she is not beautiful but ugly,

etc. Therefore, being frustrated with regard to

humiliation, she lodged the complaint.

5. I have carefully perused the complaint

averments. Of course, there may not be any pleading or

details with regard to demand of dowry, but nevertheless

there are certain allegations that accused persons have

demanded brass and copper articles worth Rs.40,000/-

before the marriage and even after the marriage, they

demanded certain jewels as well as gold and silver

articles. It is further alleged in the complaint that

accused Nos.1 to 3 have been ill-treating and harassing

the complainant by saying that if accused No.1 would

have married some other girl, he would have got more

jewels, money, etc. They also used to taunt that she

was not beautiful and accused No.1 would have married

some other beautiful girl, etc. The statement of the

witnesses recorded by the police also in fact reiterate the

complaint averments. Though there are some

discrepancies and contradictions in the petition filed

under the DV Act and in the charge sheet papers, while

deciding the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the

Court cannot take into consideration the contradictions

and omissions of some other proceedings. Those things

have to be considered by the Court at the time of


6. What the Court has to see is that on overall

considering the complaint averments and the charge

sheet papers, if there is semblance of material which

particularly attracts Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of DP Act, the Court has to examine the conduct of

accused Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid manner as alleged in

the complaint. Therefore, whether the allegations made

in the complaint amount to cruelty or not, is a matter of

fact which has to be considered by the Court. Therefore,

under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this is not a

fit case wherein the entire charge sheet can be quashed

when there are certain allegations made in the

complaint. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the

petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the

following order is made:-

Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear

that the petitioners are at liberty to move the trial Court

for their discharge. The trial Court shall not be

persuaded by any of the observations made by this Court

either at the time of deciding the application for

discharge filed by the petitioners or at the time of

considering the materials on merits of the case.

Consequently, I.A.No.3/2017 is dismissed as it does

not survive for consideration.




Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *