SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Santosh B K vs State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9061 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. SANTOSH B K
S/O Mr. KUMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

2. SMT DAKSHAYINI
W/O LATE KUMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
OCCUPATION:HOMEMAKER,

3. SMT RASHMI
W/O SRI DURGESH PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

4. MR JAGADISH
S/O LATE KUMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

5. MR DURGESH PRASAD
S/O LATE KUMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.4025/A,
PANCHAVATI NILAYA,
2ND MAIN, “B” BLOCK,
NEAR ATHMEEYA DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC
2

SUBRAMANYANAGAR
RAJAJIANGAR,
BENGALURU-560021.

6. SMT TANUJA
W/O SRI MAHESH,
OCCUPATION:HOUSE WIFE,
RESIDING AT NO.132,
ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD,
CHIKABANAVARA,
BENGALURU-560090.

7. MR MAHESH
S/O LATE ESWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCCUPATION:BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT NO.132,
ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD,
CHIKABANAVARA,
BENGALURU-560090.
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI: P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
TILAK PARK CIRCLE,
TUMKURU,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLURU-560001.

2. DR ASHA P
W/O MR SANTOSH B.K.,
3

D/O N PUTTASHANKARAPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCCUPATION:DENTIST,
RESIDENT OF MANJUNTHA NILAYA,
6TH HOUSE, 13TH CROSS,
SIT EXTENSION,
TUMKUR TOWN-572102.

NOW RESIDING AT NO.369,
1ST “D” CROSS, 10TH MAIN ROD,
SAMPIGE LAYOUT,
VIJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKURU IN
C.C.NO.21/2015 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
324, 504, 506, 498A R/W 149 OF SectionIPC AND ORDERING TO
REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE AND ISSUE SUMMONS, AS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THEREON.

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

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl.

SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent

and has not addressed any arguments. Perused the records.
4

2. Petitioners are charge sheeted for the offences

punishable under Sectionsections 498A, Section504, Section506, Section324, Section149 IPC and

Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is the husband, petitioner

No.2 is the mother, petitioner No.3 is the sister, petitioner Nos.4

and 5 are brothers, petitioner No.6 is the sister and petitioner

No.7 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1.

4. The case of the prosecution is that marriage of

respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was

performed on 27.02.2012. It is alleged that at the time of

marriage, 18 gm of gold bracelet, 6gm of gold finger ring, 18 gm

of gold neck chain, 50gm of gold chain, 50g of gold bangles and

1kg of silver articles were given as dowry on 27.02.2012.

Accused No.1 assaulted respondent No.2 on 11.09.2014 when

she had been to the house of accused No.1 and all the accused

persons abused her in vulgar language and threatened to set her

on fire if she failed to bring further dowry.
5

5. Learned counsel for petitioners’ submits that the

complaint was lodged by the second respondent as a sequel to

the petition filed by accused No.1 seeking divorce under Sectionsection

13(1) (ia) of SectionHindu Marriage Act. The allegations made in the

complaint as well as in the charge sheet are bald and general in

nature. The material collected by the investigating agency does

not specify as to which of the accused demanded or accepted

any part of dowry from respondent No.2. There is no material to

show that the alleged dowry amount was received by any one of

the petitioners. On the other hand, material on record indicate

that all throughout the second respondent was residing in her

parents’ house and under the said circumstances, there was no

occasion for petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 to subject the second

respondent to cruelty or harassment as alleged in the FIR.

Furthermore, petitioners have been residing at different places

and under the said circumstances, the allegations made against

the petitioners are palpably false and are engineered to foist

false case against the petitioners out of spite and vengeance.

6. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1-State

argued in support of the impugned action contending that the
6

material on record prima-facie disclose commission of the above

offences and hence there is no reason to quash the proceedings

pending trial.

7. On considering the submissions made at the Bar and on

going through the material on record, I find that except making

bald and general allegations in the complaint as well as in her

further statement, no material is produced on record to show

any specific instance of the alleged demand or receipt of

alleged dowry. A reading of the complaint and the allegations

made therein at the most go to show that the alleged demand

was made by accused No.1 and same was received by accused

No.1. The allegations of assault are also directed only against

accused No.1.

8. Insofar as accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, the

allegations made in the charge sheet are that on 11.09.2014,

when the complainant went to the house of accused No.1, all the

accused herein abused the complainant and threatened to set

her on fire, if she failed to satisfy their demand for additional

dowry. But the records produced before the Court indicate that
7

much before the alleged incident, matrimonial petition was filed

by accused No.1 seeking divorce under section 13(1) (ia) and

(iii) of SectionHindu Marriage Act. Except the self-serving statement of

accused No.2, there is nothing on record to show that the

alleged incident had taken place as stated in the charge sheet.

The material on record disclose that accused Nos.2 to 7 were

residing at different places and therefore, it is highly improbable

and unbelievable that all the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7

reached the house of second respondent only to abuse and

threaten her. The manner in which these allegations are made in

the charge sheet indicate that these accusations are made solely

with a view to bolster the charges foisted against the petitioners.

But as the prosecution has failed to collect any evidence in

support of these accusations, in my view, the prosecution of

petitioner Nos.2 – 7 on the basis of the above allegations is

nothing but malafide and vengeful. Therefore, taking into

consideration all the above facts and circumstances, I hold that

the prosecution of accused Nos.2 to 7 is baseless, malicious,

vexatious and ulteriorly motivated and cannot be sustained.

However, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, prima-facie
8

material is available in support of the accusations made in the

charge sheet and hence the petition filed by accused No.1 is

liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in -part.

a. Petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused

No.1 is dismissed. Trial shall proceed against

accused No.1 for the above offences in accordance

with law.

b. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 to

7/accused Nos.2 to 7 is allowed. Proceedings in

C.C.No.21/2015 pending on the file of learned Addl.

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur is quashed

only insofar as petitioner Nos.2 – 7 are concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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