IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201235/2018

Between:

1. Nagamma W/o Siddan Sinnur
Age: 56 years, Occ: Teacher
R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi Colony
Kalaburagi

2. Anand S/o Siddanna Sinnur
Age: 30 years, Occ: Private service
R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi Colony
Kalaburagi

3. Shilpa D/o Siddan Sinnur
Age: 33 years, Occ: Dentist
R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi
Colony, Kalaburagi
… Petitioners

(By Sri R.V.Nadagouda, Advocate)

And:

1. State of Karnataka
Through Rural Police Station
Rept. By High Court SPP
Kalaburagi-585107
Crl.P.No.201235/2018
2

2. Smt. Purnima S/o Shivanand Sinnur
Age: 32 years, Occ: Household
R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi Colony
Kalaburagi-585107
… Respondents

(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R1;
Sri N.B.Diwanji, Advocate for R2)

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the filing of the charge sheet on
the petitioners which is pending on the file of the V Addl.
Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi in C.C.No.4598/2018,
(Crime No.51/2018, offences punishable under sections
323, 498(A), 355, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4
of D.P. Act).

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

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

he would not press the petition for petitioner nos.1

and 2.

In view of the above submission, the petition of

petitioner nos.1 and 2 stands dismissed as not

pressed. As such, the present petition is confined only

to present petitioner no.3.

Crl.P.No.201235/2018
3

2. The present petitioner Shilpa D/o Siddan

Sinnur has sought for quashing the criminal

proceeding in C.C.No.4598/2018 confining to her,

wherein the offences punishable under sections 323,

498A, 355, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘D.P.Act’)

have been alleged against the accused.

3. The summary of the case of the prosecution

is that the complainant Smt. Purnima W/o Shivanand

Sinnur is said to have married to accused No.1

Shivanand on 05.12.2016, during which time a portion

of the dowry in the form of cash, ornaments and

articles of utility were said to have been given to the

accused. However, a portion of the dowry of a sum of

`1,00,000/- was kept as balance. The complainant

has alleged that to get the said remaining balance of
Crl.P.No.201235/2018
4

the dowry, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-

law and sister-in-law were harassing her physically

and mentally. The complainant has given further

details of the alleged ill-treatment said to have been

meted to her. Ultimately, the police, after completing

the investigation, have filed charge sheet against all

the four accused for the offences punishable under

sections 498A, 323, 355, 504 read with section 34 of

IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the present petitioner who is accused

no.4 in the case, is admittedly the sister-in-law of the

complainant. However, he submits that the said

petitioner has never been residing with the

complainant during the relevant period of time, when

the alleged cruelty has been alleged against the

accused. Learned counsel further submits that he has

got every documents to place before the Court to
Crl.P.No.201235/2018
5

show that at the relevant point of time the petitioner

was working at Madikeri. He further submits that

even otherwise, there are no allegations levelled

against the present petitioner and merely because she

is sister-in-law of the complainant, her name is also

included, only to harass her.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader, in

his argument for respondent no.1, submits that the

Investigating Officer has collected materials to subject

every accused for trial.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2,

supporting the submission of learned High Court

Government Pleader, has also stated that the

complainant has given a detailed account of the

cruelty meted to her in her matrimonial home, as

such, the accused/petitioner deserves to be tried for

the alleged offences.

Crl.P.No.201235/2018
6

7. A perusal of the charge sheet materials

placed before this Court at this stage and prima facie

would go to show that the complainant in the case is

none else than the alleged victim who claims to be the

wife of accused no.1 and sister-in-law of the present

petitioner. In her very complaint, at the first instance,

though she has spoken about the alleged demand for

dowry said to have been made by her husband and

mother-in-law, but given a detailed account of the

alleged instances of the cruelty said to have been

meted to her in her matrimonial home.

However, a reading of those details of the

alleged cruelty including the one where she is said to

have consumed dettol due to unbearable cruelty

meted to her, would go to show that her direct

allegation is, apart from her husband, confined only to

her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Repeated at

several places, she has accused her mother-in-law
Crl.P.No.201235/2018
7

and brother-in-law as the one who subjected her to

alleged cruelty and ill-treatment. It is only at one

place in the beginning, with respect to the alleged

demand for dowry, she has mentioned about her

sister-in-law who is the present petitioner herein.

However, a reading of the complaint in its

entirety, go to show that in a mechanical manner she

might have added the name of her sister-in-law who is

the accused no.4/petitioner since she was one among

the family members of the husband of the

complainant. Rest of it, the entire allegation is bereft

of any overt act alleged against the present petitioner,

as already observed above, is concentrated and

confined only against the remaining accused. No

material appears to be there in the charge sheet

arraigning the finger against the present petitioner.

Crl.P.No.201235/2018
8

8. Further, the petitioner has also produced a

document in the form of a relieving order said to have

been issued by Principal, Coorg Institute of Dental

Sciences showing that the present petitioner who was

working as a Reader in the said institute, was relieved

due to her resignation on 2nd February, 2018. Though

learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the

said document may have to be analysed in trial, but

prima facie and at this stage, the said document

cannot be totally discarded and more than that, as

observed above, since in the absence of any direct

overt act alleged against the present petitioner,

continuation of the criminal case against the present

petitioner and subjecting her to face the trial, would

only be a futile exercise, which results in the

harassment to the present petitioner by compelling

her to face the trial.

Crl.P.No.201235/2018
9

As such, I am of the view that it is a fit case to

exercise the power under section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. The criminal case against

the present petitioner deserves to be quashed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed. The criminal

proceeding in C.C.No.4598/2018 said to have been

pending on the file of V Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under

sections 498(A), 323, 355, 504 read with section 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed as against and

confined to the present petitioner Smt. Shilpa D/o

Siddan Sinnur only.

Sd/-

JUDGE
swk