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