{"id":3274,"date":"2014-06-17T22:02:42","date_gmt":"2014-06-17T16:32:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=3274"},"modified":"2014-06-17T22:06:16","modified_gmt":"2014-06-17T16:36:16","slug":"15356-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/15356-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"498A filed to harass husband and his Parents – Quashed"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA<\/strong><\/p>\n

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2011
\nBEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15356\/2011<\/p>\n

BETWEEN:
\n1. SANTOSH Sb KALLLPPA FALASKAR AGE:37 YEARS.
\n2. KALLAPPA Sb. AGE:67 YEARS.
\n3. KRISHNABAI W\/O KALLAPPA AGE:30 YEARS.
\n4. PAJ U S\/O KALLAPPA AGE:35 YEARS.
\nALL RIG NAGSHE1T KOPPA KESHAVPUPA. HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD.
\nPETITIONERSBY SRI.SACHIN M MAHAJAN, ADV.<\/p>\n

AND<\/p>\n

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ANR BY SADAR BAZAR POLICE STATION RAICHUR THROUGH ITS PSI
\nR\/BY ThE SPP, HONBLE HIGIl COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA
\n2. SMT.SR1DEVI W\/O SANTOSI-I KALASKAR
\nAGE: 28 YEARS.
\nRIO : H.NO.3-7-23. BEROON KI-JILLA RAICHUR….RESPONDENTS
\n(BY SRLSUBHASH.MALLAPUR, HCGP)<\/p>\n

THIS CRLP IS Filed U\/S. 482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR ThE PETITIONERS PRAYiNG THAT ThIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED 10, CALL FOR ThE RECORDS AND QUASH THE CHP.RGE SHEET DATED 22.02.2010 FILED BY THE SADAR BAZAR POLICE STATION AT RAICHUR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR ThE ALLEGED OCFENCES P\/L1\/S. 498(A). 504. 506(2) R\/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 & 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBiTION ACT. 1961 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 1444\/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C.-II AT RAICHUR.<\/p>\n

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE ThE FOLLOWING:<\/p>\n

ORDER<\/p>\n

One Srnt.Sridevi CW- 1, is the wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.4 is the brother of Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.1 and CW- 1 were married on 17.04.2000. The family disputes arose. It is the case of CW- 1 that the petitioner started abusing CW- I to bring additional dowry from her parents and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner No.1, CW\u2014 I unable to bring additional dowry, left her matrimonial home and lived with her parents.<\/p>\n

1. The CW- I says that, she was no aware of the petition filed in Conjugal Rights and petition for divorce. The CW- 1 had filed a case for seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Raichur on 11.08.2009 and 18.08.2009. When she attended to Family Court at Raichur, the 1st petitioner along with his friends abused CW- 1 and threatened with dire consequences. if CW- 1 does not wlthdrawn the maintenance case. CW- 1 aggrieved by criminal conduct filed a private complaint under Section 200, J.M.F.C. Raichur who referred the complaint to police. The case is registered. A charge sheet Is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504. 506. 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act.<\/p>\n

2. The Counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that, the complaint flied by CW- 1 is only counter blast. The petitioner No. I in fact has tiled petition seeking constitute conjugal rights The said petition was allowed. The CW- 1 refused to cohabit with petitioner No. 1.<\/p>\n

3. The petitioner No. 1 later on filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion. In the said petition. CW- I s ex-parte, the divorce petition is allowed. The petitioner thus contends that, the case is registered against them Ofl tile instant of CW\u2014 I is false and a concocted version<\/p>\n

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, there are two instance of cruelty alleged. The first instance of cruelty, that all the petitioners some time after the marriage started harassing ew- 1 to get more dowry. The said complaint does riot refer to nature, overt acts and date and time of the overt acts.<\/p>\n

The complaint refers to a latest of criminal acts on the part of petitioner No. 1 and his friends. It is said that on 11.08.2009 and 18.08.2009. when CW-1 came tO the Family Court., petitioner No.1 and his fritd threaten and tire consequence and directed her to withdraw her petition filed by her.<\/p>\n

5. In respect of 2T\u2019ld instance, the allegation is only against petitioner No. 1. There is no allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. In the further statement. CW- I states that she does not know who the friend were. Petitioner No.1 threatened her with dire consequence at the Family Court Raichur. In respect of 1 instance, the allegations are vague. The CW\u2013 1 has not stated why she has not filed complaint immediately alleging cruelty and dowry harassment at the earliest. The conduct of CW- 1 in filing the complaint after grant of divorce suggests dubious intention on the part of CW- 1. The averment in the complaint discloses that CW- 1 was aware of petition filed for conjugal rights and petition for divorce. CW- I could have contested the said case and prove her theory. The facts reveal that, the petitioner No.1 is paying maintenance to CW- I and the said case is still pending. In the context of the facts stat.ed above, it is inferable that the \u2018ornpIaint is gi cii with oblique motive oniy to harass the\u2019 accuscd.In that view, the proceedings in C.C No. 144\/2010 on the file of J.M.F.C lind Court at Raichur, are quashed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2011 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO CRIMINAL…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[566,47,1690,48,175,24256,1617,7,27054,27080,23599,27079,1689,27081,27082],"class_list":["post-3274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-566","tag-498a","tag-498a-ipc","tag-dowry","tag-false-498a","tag-false-498a-ipc","tag-false-case","tag-ipc-498a","tag-ipc-s498a","tag-justice-k-sreedhar","tag-s498a","tag-santosh-sb-kalllppa-falaskar","tag-section-498a","tag-sri-sachin-m-mahajan","tag-us-482"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}