SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Puttalakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2018

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
9

complaints 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
10

abuse 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2018 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh