CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4666 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SMT.PUTTALAKSHMI
W/O RAMA KRISHANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT VADLAMURU,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
GODAVARI EAST KAKINADA
ANDHRA PRADESH – 533 307
ADDRESS AS PER I.D.CARD
R/AT NO.1-77, NO.1, SCHOOL VEEDHI
KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDALAM
VADLAMURU, ATCHUTAPURAM
EAST GODAVARI,
ANDHRA PRADESH – 533 307 … PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHASKAR D., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE – 577 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
2
2. SMT.MANJULA
W/O PUTTAVEER VENKATAVARA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
DOOR NO-1880, 1ST CROSS
BEHIND LAKSHMI FLOOR MILL
DAVANAGERE – 577 004 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAZRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.HALEEMA AMEEN, ADV., FOR
SRI S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.63/2014
DATED 19.09.2014 ALONG WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION
DATED 19.09.2014 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT
DAVANAGERE WOMEN P.S., (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
B) AND QUASH THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE IN THE SAID MATTER BEARING CR.NO.63/2014
CURRENTLY RENUMBERED AS MATTER BEARING
C.C.NO.870/2015, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE JMFC III
COURT, DAVANAGERE (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE -C) AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN MATTER BEARING
CR.NO.63/2014 CURRENTLY RENUMBERED AS MATTER
BEARING C.C.NO.870/2015, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE
JMFC III COURT, DAVANAGERE (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE-D).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20TH SEPTEMBER 2018, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.870/2015 on the
file of the JMFC III Court, Davanagere arising out of Crime
No.63/2014 of Women Police Station, Davangere, are
abuse of process of the Court causing failure of ends of
justice is the question involved in this case.
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
3
2. Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.63/2014
of Women Police Station, which is now pending in
C.C.No.870/2015 on the file of the JMFC III Court
Davanagere. Her son Puttaveera Venkata Varaprasad is
the 1st accused in the said case. 2nd respondent is the wife
of the 1st accused.
3. The marriage of 2nd respondent and Puttaveera
Venkata Varaprasad (accused No.1) was solemnized on
13.10.2013 in Annavaram, Andhra Pradesh. At the time of
marriage, 2nd respondent was residing with her elder sister
(C.W.8) in Davanagere. C.W.7 is the husband of C.W.8.
Out of the said wedlock, couple have a daughter.
4. 2nd respondent filed complaint dated
19.09.2014 as per Annexure-B before the Women Police
Station, Davangere alleging that two months after the
marriage, the 1st accused started harassing her demanding
Rs. 30 Lakhs from her parents to start business. She
further alleged that when she could not yield to his
demand on that ground and suspecting her fidelity he
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
4
started to harass her physically and mentally. She alleged
that in December 2013, 1st accused set up house in
Hyderabad and they shifted from Davangere to the said
house at Hyderabad. She further alleged that at the
instigation of petitioner, the 1st accused demanded Rs.30
Lakhs. At the time of marriage, Rs.7.5 Lakhs of cash and
3 tholas of gold was given to him. She alleged that 1st
accused threatened that, if she fails to bring Rs.30 Lakhs,
he will divorce her.
5. On the said complaint, 1st respondent Police
registered FIR as per Annexure-A in Crime No.63/2014 and
conducted investigation and charge sheeted the petitioner
and accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections
498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
6. The trial Court on receiving such charge sheet
took cognizance against the petitioner and 1st accused of
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 114 of
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
5
Indian Penal Code Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
7. On receipt of summons, petitioner appeared in
the said case and the trial court granted bail to her.
8. Sri.Bhaskar.D., the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks to assail the impugned proceedings on the
following grounds:
(i) As per the complaint itself, cash of Rs.7.5
Lakhs and 3 thola gold was given by the
complainant’s family and there is no whisper in
the complaint of any demand for such cash or
gold;
(ii) As per complaint itself, 1st accused and
2nd respondent soon after the marriage lived in
the house of C.Ws.7 8 and thereafter they
were residing in Hyderabad. Petitioner is the
resident of Vadlamuru Village, East Godavari
District, and she was residing with her
husband;
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
6
(iii) As per the complaint itself, petitioner was
the occasional visitor to the house of 1st
accused and 2nd respondent;
(iv) There are no specific allegations in the
complaint against the petitioner;
(v) Petitioner is 59 years old lady. She has to
travel all the way from her native place in
Andhra Pradesh to Davanagere to attend the
case which causes her hardship and she is
roped in the case to harass in that way;
(vi) 1st accused and 2nd respondent entered
into a partnership to run professional
Educational Training/Consultancy in the name
and style of M/s Gomatha Educational
Consultancy;
(vii) The payment of Rs.7.5 Lakhs was made
as the share capital to the 2nd respondent in the
firm and the petitioner is totally un-connected
to that and she is falsely implicated in the case
to bring the 1st accused to terms.
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
7
9. In support of his contentions, he seeks to rely
upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court:
I) PREETHI GUPTA -VS- STATE OF
JHARKHAND, (2010) 7 SCC 667;
II) VARALA BHARATH KUMAR -VS- STATE OF
TELANGANA, (2017) 9 SCC 413.
10. Per contra, Smt. Haleema Ameen the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent seeks to justify the
proceedings on the following grounds:
i) There is complaint and statements of witnesses
to speak about the overt acts of the petitioner;
ii) There is statement of account in proof for
transfer of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to the account of the 1st
accused from the account of C.W.4, younger brother
of the 2nd respondent;
iii) Petitioner has abetted 1st accused to demand
money and to harass 2nd respondent.
11. This Court in exercise of its inherent power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the criminal
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
8
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court and
to secure the ends of justice.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preethi
Gupta’s case referred to supra, at paragraphs 14 and 35
held as follows:
“14. This Court in a number of cases has laid down
the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section
482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to
act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice, for the administration of which alone it
exists, or to prevent the abuse of process of court.
Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent the abuse of process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
……..
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority
of these complaints. The tendency of implicating
the husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
9complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The allegations of harassment of husband’s
close relations who had been living in different
cities and never visited or rarely visited the
place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. In Varala Bharath Kumar’s case referred to
supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that if the
uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information
Report/complaint and the material collected in support of
the same prima facie do not constitute any offence or
make out the case against the accused, such proceedings
have to be quashed.
14. Para No. 6 of the judgment in Varala Bharath
Kumar’s case read as follows:
“6. It is by now well settled that the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can
be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
10abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Where allegations made in the
first information report/the complaint or the
outcome of investigation as found in the charge-
sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out the case against
the accused; where the allegations do not disclose
the ingredients of the offence alleged; where the
uncontroverted allegations made in the first
information report or complaint and the material
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of offence alleged and make out a case
against the accused; where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge, the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Indian or under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised.”
15. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments, this
Court has to see whether there is prima facie material
against the petitioner to constitute the offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 114 of I.P.C. and Section 3 4 of
D.P. Act.
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
11
16. First of all, as per the complaint the petitioner
was not residing with the couple, viz., 2nd respondent and
1st accused. After the marriage admittedly respondent
No.2 and her husband lived in the house of C.Ws.7 8 at
Davanagere. As already pointed out, petitioner is/was
resident of Vadlamuru Village, East Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh. As per complaint allegations themselves,
in December 2013, 1st accused set up a house in
Hyderabad and 2nd respondent and 1st accused shifted to
the house at Hyderabad. As per complaint averments
during that time also petitioner was residing in her native
Vadlamuru.
17. So far as the payment of Rs.7.5 Lakhs cash
and 3 thola gold, in the complaint there is no allegation
that the said cash and gold were paid on demand of 1st
accused, much less the present petitioner. It is simply
said in the complaint that they gave said amount and gold
at the time of the marriage.
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
12
18. So far as the demand of Rs.30 Lakhs, the
allegation against the petitioner is that she abetted the 1st
accused to demand that. No where it is said that she
demanded that amount. Even this allegation of abetment
is too bald. It is not said when she visited the house of the
couple at Hyderabad and when the demand was made.
Not even the further statement of the complainant is
forthcoming in the charge sheet to clarify that. 2nd
respondent is the alleged direct victim of the petitioner.
She is not specific in her allegations in terms of date and
time. Statements of other witnesses regarding the said
abetment are all hearsay. They say they learnt about such
abetment through the 2nd respondent.
19. In this context, choosing of forum is also
significant. The alleged harassment took place at
Hyderabad. Petitioner is aged about 59 years residing in
remote place in Andhra Pradesh and the case is filed in
Davanagere Women Police Station. Under these
circumstances, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
CRL.P.NO.4666/2016
13
Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
fully cover this case. The proceedings against the
petitioner are nothing but the abuse of the process of the
Court and their continuation against the petitioner
amounts to failure of ends of justice.
Therefore, the petition is allowed. FIR in Crime
No.63/2014 of Women Police Station, Davanagere and
consequent proceedings in C.C.No.870/2015 on the file of
the JMFC III Court Davanagere, so far they relate to the
petitioner are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
