Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201506/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Parabathula Lakshmana Swamy
S/o Surya Rao,
Aged about 62 years,
Occ:Agriculture.
2. Parabathula Yerramma
W/o P.Lakshmana Sawmy,
Aged about 58 years,
Occ:Agriculture.
3. Parabathula Suribabu
S/o P.Lakshmana Sawmy,
Aged about 44 years,
Occ:Agriculture.
4. Parabathula Venkateswara Rao
S/o P.Lakshmana Sawmy,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ:Agriculture.
5. Parabathula Ramush
S/o P.Lakshmana Sawmy,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ:Agriculture.
All R/o 5/153 Ravichettu Center,
Near water tank, Challapalli, Village,
2
Uppalaguptham Mandalam, Amalapurm Tq,
East Godavari District-Andhra Pradesh.
… Petitioners
(By Sri.B.V.Jalde and Veeranagouda Malipatil, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sirwar
Tq:Manvi, District:Raichur.
Pin Code-584129.
Rep by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka.
2. P.Manga Devi W/o Parabathula Sathibabu,
Age:About 34 years, Occ:Household,
R/o Chagabavi Camp, Tq:Manvi,
District:Raichur-584123.
… Respondents
(By Sri.Gururaj.V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1
Sri.Shivanand Patil, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the initiation of proceedings in
C.C.No.268/2017 (Crime No.137/2016) for offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of D.P Act registered by
Sirwar Police Station which is pending before the learned
JMFC, Manvi.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the initiation of proceedings
3
against the present petitioners in C.C.No.268/2017 arising
out of the Crime No.137/2016 of Sirwar Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The factual matrix leading to the case are that
the complainant/respondent No.2 herein is the wife of the
accused No.1 and the present petitioners are the in-laws of
the complainant.
3. The allegations were that the marriage of
complainant was solemnized on 30.03.2000 at Satyawada
Village near Mandapeta Town of EG District and sufficient
amount was paid as dowry in the form of cash and gold as
per demand. It is also alleged that subsequently the
complainant/respondent No.2 was subjected to ill-
treatment all along and additional dowry was also
demanded by the present petitioners and accused No.1
and she was inflicted enormous mental and physical
cruelty by all the accused insisting to alienate 2 acres of
4
land mutated in her name. The complainant has tolerated
the ill-treatment to the maximum extent but subsequently
when it exceeded the limit she filed a private complaint
before the learned magistrate Court at Manvi in
P.C.No.32/2016.
4. The learned Magistrate has referred the matter
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and the
investigating officer after investigation submitted the
charge sheet against the accused No.1 and present
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
5. The learned Magistrate has issued process
against the present petitioners after taking cognizance and
being aggrieved by issuance of process and taking
cognizance, the petitioners have filed this petition for
quashing the initiation of the proceedings against them.
5
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the initiation of the proceedings against the
present petitioners is abuse of the process of law and
marriage was solemnized in 2000, but the complaint was
lodged in 2016 and there is inordinate delay. That the
investigating officer has also not recorded the statement of
the independent witnesses and there is no material to
frame the charge and the petitioners are residing in
Challapalli Village in Andhra Pradesh and no purpose will
be served by continuing the proceedings and as such it is
sought for quashing the proceedings.
7. Per contra the learned HCGP for respondent
No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2
seriously objected the petition on the ground that the
petitioners have all along subjected the complainant to ill-
treatment by demanding additional dowry and even they
have not paid the maintenance as awarded which clearly
establish their mental attitude. It is contended that the
investigating officer has recorded the statement of
6
material witnesses and there is prima-facie material
evidence as against the present petitioners also and hence
it is sought for rejection of the petition.
8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is to be noted that the investigating officer has
submitted the charge sheet against the present petitioners
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
9. Admittedly the marriage of the complainant
and the accused No.1 was solemnized in 2000 and the
complaint was lodged in 2016. But that itself is not a
ground for quashing the proceedings as it is open for the
petitioners to elicit the grounds and the complainant can
substantiate the delay before the trial Court in lodging the
complaint. The allegations of the complaint clearly
establish that there is specific assertion regarding
subjecting the complainant to ill-treatment and demand of
additional dowry and she was subjected to ill-treatment all
7
along insisting for her to sell the land standing in her name
measuring about 2 acres. The allegations prima-facie
disclose that there is sufficient material. The contention of
the petitioners that the investigating officer has not
recorded the statement of any independent witnesses
holds no water as the charge sheet disclose that the
investigating officer has recorded the statement of
material witnesses also.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on unreported decision of this Court in
Crl.P.No.5478/2016 dated 09.07.2020, but the facts
and circumstances are entirely different.
11. On the contrary, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
decision reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1918
[M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., v. State of
Maharashtra and others] has specifically laid down
guidelines for quashing the proceedings and interference
by the High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the principles
8
enunciated in the decision relied by the learned counsel for
the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand. This is not rarest of
rare case as no evidence is forthcoming to show that it is
abuse of process of law. Hence, the petition is devoid of
any merits and the petitioners are required to appear
before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate order.
Hence, petition needs to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
NS
