SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr Srinivasan Ranganathan vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7843 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. MR SRINIVASAN RANGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRA RANGANATHAN,

2. SRI RAMACHANDRA RANGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRA IYER,

3. SMT SHANTHIMATHI RANGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O RAMACHANDRA RANGANATHAN,

ALL R/O PLOT NO.43, H.NO.9177,
NEW GAYATRI NAGAR, KARMANGHAT,
MEERPET, P.O HYDERABAD,
ANDHARA PRADESH-500097. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI: STANLEY SAM, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVANGUDI WOMEN’S POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2

2. SAI SUDHA MURALI
D/O H MURALI,
R/O NO.57, SAI MAA, R.K.LAYOUT,
FIRST STAGE, VIII CROSS,
PADBHANABHANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560017 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CMM
COURT, BANGALORE CITY IN CRIME NO.46/2017 AT ANNEXURE
“C” BY ALLOWING THIS APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 and learned HCGP.

2. Petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in

Crime No.46/2017 registered at the instance of the second

respondent for the offences punishable under sections 506, 34

and 498A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3

3. According to the complainant/respondent No.2, she

married accused No.1 on 29.08.2006 at Bengaluru. For a brief

period, she stayed in the house of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at

Hyderabad awaiting her Visa. Thereafter, she joined her

husband in USA and lived there for about four months

whereafter she returned to Bengaluru and continued residing in

her parents house within the limits of Basavanagudi Women

Police Station.

4. The only allegation made against the petitioners

herein is that while respondent No.2 was staying in her in-law’s

house at Hyderabad, the petitioners namely accused Nos.2 to 4

placed a demand for silver and also asked her to pay a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/-. The relevant allegations in this regard find

place at paras 4 and 5 which read as under:

“4. Accused 3-4 live in Hyderabad. I went to
the house of accused 3-4 after marriage for
obtaining visa. When she was staying the
accused 1-4 demanded silver articles stating
that it is customary for the bride to give to the
groom’s family lots of silver articles. I pleaded
that he should give me some time.

4

5. The accused 2-4 also stated that the 1st
accused is in dire financial constraints due to
the alleged fire in his apartment and demanded
Rs.10,00,000/- from me. The accused 2-4 also
stated that it is customary that the bride and
my family pay such amounts to the groom’s
family.”

Further in para 19, it is stated that,

“The accused No.2 lodged a false complaint
against me and my parents with the police in
Bengaluru that I and my family members made
threats to the life of 1st and 2nd accused.”

5. These allegations even if accepted on its face value,

do not make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against

the petitioners. First and foremost, respondent No.2, as per her

own saying, had stayed with the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 only for

a brief period of two weeks. The allegation of demand for silver

is too vague and it is not her case that there was any such

demand either at the time of marriage or in connection with the

marriage. As such, said allegation even if accepted on its face

value, does not attract any of the provisions of section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. Likewise, the allegation made in para 5
5

of the complaint that accused Nos.2 to 4 demanded

Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant for repair of the apartment

also does not fall within the definition of “dowry” under section 2

of Dowry Prohibition Act. The demand made for reconstruction

of house, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as “dowry

demand”. Therefore, even this allegation does not make out the

offence alleged against the petitioners.

6. Nextly it is alleged that petitioner No.1/accused No.2

had lodged a false complaint against the complainant and her

parents. There is nothing illegal in petitioner No.1/accused No.2

taking recourse to criminal action. If the allegations made in the

complaint are found to be without any basis, same may furnish

an independent cause of action for the second respondent to

proceed against accused No.2. Lodging of a criminal complaint

by itself cannot constitute an offence either under section 498A

or section 506 of Indian Penal Code.

7. Barring the above allegations, there is no material

to substantiate these allegations. The allegations appear to have

been made against the petitioners solely because they are
6

related to accused No.1 with whom respondent No.2 is having

serious matrimonial differences, as is evident from the fact that

all other allegations in the complaint are directed solely against

accused No.1 namely husband of respondent No.2. Therefore,

considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of

the view that the proceedings initiated against the present

petitioners are wholly an abuse of process of court and are liable

to be quashed.

Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed. Registration of

the complaint in Crime No.46/2017 of Basavanagudi Women

Police Station and consequent proceedings pending on the file of

the II Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru so far as petitioners are

concerned are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bss

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation