Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Karnataka High Court
Amulkumar And Ors vs The State Through And Anr on 21 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201680 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. AMULKUMAR S/O VIDYACHAND BABLAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
R/O VIJAYANAGAR, ALAND ROAD,
KALABURAGI,
DIST. AND TQ. KALABURAGI-585104.
2. VINODKUMAR S/O VIDYACHAND BABLAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
R/O VIJAYANAGAR, ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT PUNE PIN CODE-585104.
3. REKHA W/O VINODKUMAR BABLAD,
Digitally signed by
SHILPA R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
TENIHALLI R/O VIJAYANAGAR, ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI,
Location: HIGH NOW RESIDING AT PUNE PIN CODE-585104.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BHARAMAGOUDA K. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
MAHILA P.S.,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY, ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023
BENCH AT KALABURAGI-585102.
2. VIDYASHREE W/O AMULKUMAR BABLAD
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O HATTALLI,
TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586205.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWERS AND JURISDICTION U/S 482
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15642/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF I ADDITIONAL J.M.F.C. AT KALABURAGI FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34
OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT IN CRIME
NO.09/2021 OF MAHILA P.S. KALABURAGI, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TO
PREVENT THE ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW
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. for quashing the proceedings pending on
the file of I Additional JMFC, Kalaburagi in
C.C.No.15642/2022, arising out of Crime No.9/2021 of
Mahila Police Station, Kalaburagi registered for the
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short,
‘IPC’) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act (for short, ‘the DP Act’)
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that:
The marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with
the complainant on 10.01.2019 and sufficient dowry was
paid in the form of cash and gold. It is also alleged that
certain amount was transferred to the account of accused
No.1 by bank transfer. However, the petitioners started
to harass the complainant demanding additional dowry
and hence, she was compelled to file a complaint in this
regard.
3. On the basis of the complaint, a crime was
registered and subsequently, the Investigating Officer
after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the
accused.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023
4. Being aggrieved by the submission of the
charge-sheet and taking cognizance, the petitioners are
before this Court by way of this petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State as well as learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residing
separately and the marriage is already dissolved and no
case is made for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.
He would contend that the statements of the witnesses
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. run contrary to the
complaint allegations and hence, he would seek for
allowing the petition by quashing the proceedings.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and learned
counsel for respondent No.2 would support the order of
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023
the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuing
process. They would contend that the evidence on record
disclose that the amount was transferred by way of cash
through bank transaction which is prima facie evident of
demand of dowry and payment of dowry and the
ingredients of offence under Section 498A of IPC is
directly applicable. They would further assert that the
statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the
Investigating Officer clearly disclose that all the
petitioners with common intention subjected the
complainant to mental and physical cruelty demanding
additional dowry and the genuineness of the statements
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. cannot be gone into
at this juncture in a petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. Hence, they would seek for rejection of the
petition.
8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is an admitted fact that petitioner No.1 is the
husband of respondent No.2/complainant. Petitioner Nos.2
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023
and 3 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
complainant. The allegations made in the complaint
disclose that there was demand of dowry and during the
marriage, sufficient amount of dowry was paid in the form
of cash and gold. Prima facie the records disclose that
certain amount has been transferred by way of Bank
account also.
9. The statements of the witnesses disclose that
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have joined the hands with
petitioner No.1 in demanding the dowry and subjecting
the complainant to ill-treatment. Though the learned
counsel for the petitioners would contend that the
statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. run
contrary to the complaint allegations, they cannot be
looked into at this juncture and are required to be tested
only during the course of the trial. The statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well
as the complaint allegations clearly disclose that even
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have subjected the
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023
victim/complainant to ill-treatment. Apart from that, the
certified copy of the order sheet discloses that all along
the petitioners have remained absent before the Trial
Court and some time warrants came to be issued and
some time, exemption petitions came to be filed which
has resulted in protracting the matter, though the matter
is pending since 2022. The certified copy of the order
sheet discloses that all along the exemption petitions were
regularly filed and that will also clearly discloses the
intention of the petitioners. In view of these facts and
circumstances, this case does not fall under the
exceptions as provided in AIR 2021 SCC 1918 [M/s.
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others] so as to quash the
proceedings. The remedy for the petitioners is to
substantiate their defence in the Trial Court itself. Hence,
the petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive
for consideration and accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1673
CRL.P No.201680 of 2023ORDER
The petition stands dismissed with costs of
Rs.2,000/-.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2023 filed
for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
