SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Palli Krishnappa @ M Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7143/2016
BETWEEN:

1. Palli Krishnappa @ M Krishnappa
S/o Late Munuyappa,
Aged about 60 years,
R/a Chichandlahalli,
Srinivasandra,
Kasamballi Hobli,
Bangarapete Taluk,
Kolar District -563 121.

2. Rathnamma,
W/o M Krishnappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/a Chichandlahalli,
Srinivasandra,
Kasamballi Hobli,
Bangarapete Taluk,
Kolar District -563 121.

3. Pradeep @ Praveen C K,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 32 years,
R/a Chichandlahalli,
Srinivasandra,
Kasamballi Hobli,
2

Bangarapete Taluk,
Kolar District -563 121.

4. Manjunath K,
S/o Palli Krishnappa @ M Krishnappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/a Chichandlahalli,
Srinivasandra,
Kasamballi Hobli,
Bangarapete Taluk,
Kolar District -563 121.

5. Kolu Munuyappa
S/o late Yarappa,
Aged about 58 years,
R/a Chichandlahalli,
Srinivasandra, Kasamballi Hobli,
Bangarapete Taluk,
Kolar District -563 121. …Petitioners

(By Sri Dineshkumar Rao K, Advocate)

AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Sarjapura Police Station,

2. Smt.S Lavanya,
W/o Chalapathi C K
Aged about 23 years,
R/a Rajeev Gandhinagar,
Mugalur Gram Panchayath,
Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore – 562 125. …Respondents

(By Sri. Sandesh.J.Chouta, SPP-II for R-1)
3

This Criminal Petition is filed Under Section 482
of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in CC
No.604/2015 for the offence punishable under Section
498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and subsequent proceedings thereto pending on the
file of Prl.C.J (JR.DN) and JMFC, Anekal and etc.

This criminal petition coming on for admission
this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused 2

to 6 under Section 482, praying the Court to quash the

proceedings initiated in CC No.604/2015 for the

offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard the arguments for the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused 2 to 6 and also

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent State.

4

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that as per the complaint averments and

other charge sheet materials, the main allegations are

against accused-1/husband of the complainant and so

far as the petitioners here in are concerned, the only

allegation is that they use to instigate accused -1 to

insist the complainant to bring dowry amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from her parental home.

4. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that it

is only a bald and vague allegation that these petitioners

were insisting accused -1 and there is no supporting

material in the charge sheet to sustain the said

allegations made in the complaint. Hence, learned

counsel submitted in the absence of such prima facie

material proceedings initiated against the

petitioners/accused 2 to 6 are without any base and it

is only the abuse of process of Court, hence, submitted
5

to allow the petition and quash the proceedings as

against the petitioners/accused 2 to 6.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader referring to the charge sheet material submitted

that it is not only the instigation by these petitioners to

accused -1 but there is a statement of three eye

witnesses to the incident that these petitioners came to

the parental house of the complainant and in their

presence picked up quarrel and insisted the

complainant to bring Rs.3,00,000/- dowry amount

otherwise, they will not allow her to come to her

husband’s house. The statement goes to show that

these petitioners dragged her and assaulted her.

6. Learned HCGP submitted that so far as the

assault as per the statement of eye witnesses is

concerned, in the charge sheet there is no offence under

Section 323 but perusing the materials placed on
6

record, no doubt at the first instance, in the complaint

itself it is mentioned by the complainant that these

petitioners were also instigating the accused -1 to insist

the complainant to bring dowry amount from her

parental house. But looking to the entire charge sheet

material and considering the statement of witnesses

recorded during investigation, the statement are to the

effect that even these petitioners ill treated and

harassed the complainant for dowry amount. They have

stated that all these petitioners came to the parental

house of the complainant, picked up quarrel, insisted

her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- otherwise they will not allow

her to come to her husband house. Not only that, their

statement also goes to show that petitioners dragged her

and assaulted her. These materials if considered, a

prima facie case makes out the involvement of these

petitioners.

7

7. Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that it is not the only instigation but

for their participation also there is material. Hence,

question of quashing the proceedings by invoking

Section 482 does not arise in this case because there is

a prima facie material against all these petitioners. No

merits.

Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh