-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3062/2017
BETWEEN :
1. Sri K.N. Subramanian
Aged about 65 years
S/o late Narayana Iyer
2. Mrs. Lakshmi Subramanian
W/o K.N. Subramanian
Aged about 60 years
Both are residing at
#2/20, Mukund Housing Society
Gavanpada, Mulund East
Mumbai-400 081.
…Petitioners
(By Sri Vijaykumar Prakash, Advocate)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Halasur Gate Women’s Police Station
Bangalore-560 002.
Now represented by The State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001.
-2-
2. Mrs. Priya Ramanathan
D/o R.V. Ramanathan
Aged about 29 years
Flat No.102, Elan Aster Apartments
2nd Cross, Papaiah Reddy Lane
Hanumappa Road, New Thippasandra
Bangalore-560 075.
…Respondents
(By Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1;
Sri Siji Malayil, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 27.02.2017
passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
at Bengaluru in Crime No.13/2016 (CC No.8305/2017)
whereby the Hon’ble Court was pleased to take
cognizance of the offences punishable under Section
498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act as against the present petitioners.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2.
-3-
2. Perused the records. Records disclose that the
second respondent herein lodged a complaint before the
jurisdictional Magistrate, i.e., 6th Additional CMM,
Bengaluru, making allegations against the petitioners for
the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘DP Act’ for
short). It appears, the learned Magistrate has referred
the said complaint for investigation and to report. The
police have now filed the charge sheet against the
accused persons for the aforesaid offences and on the
basis of which the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance against the accused persons. The said order
is under challenge before this Court in this petition
seeking quashing of the registration of a criminal case in
CC.No.8305/2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, much earlier to lodging of the complaint, second
respondent has also filed a petition in
-4-
C.Misc.No.219/2015 under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short). But the
material facts with regard to demand and payment of
dowry has not been pleaded under the DV Act. Further,
he contends that even on perusal of the entire averments
in the charge sheet, there are no allegations made which
are sufficient to attract Section 498A of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the DP Act. Therefore, he pleads for quashing
of the proceedings.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second
respondent submits that, on overall reading of the
complaint and charge sheet papers, it discloses that, the
second respondent was humiliated by accused Nos.1
to 3. Even much prior to the marriage there was a
demand of certain brass and copper articles, etc. Even
after the marriage, they started demanding dowry as well
as they continued to humiliate the complainant by
taunting her by saying that she is not beautiful but ugly,
-5-
etc. Therefore, being frustrated with regard to
humiliation, she lodged the complaint.
5. I have carefully perused the complaint
averments. Of course, there may not be any pleading or
details with regard to demand of dowry, but nevertheless
there are certain allegations that accused persons have
demanded brass and copper articles worth Rs.40,000/-
before the marriage and even after the marriage, they
demanded certain jewels as well as gold and silver
articles. It is further alleged in the complaint that
accused Nos.1 to 3 have been ill-treating and harassing
the complainant by saying that if accused No.1 would
have married some other girl, he would have got more
jewels, money, etc. They also used to taunt that she
was not beautiful and accused No.1 would have married
some other beautiful girl, etc. The statement of the
witnesses recorded by the police also in fact reiterate the
complaint averments. Though there are some
-6-
discrepancies and contradictions in the petition filed
under the DV Act and in the charge sheet papers, while
deciding the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the
Court cannot take into consideration the contradictions
and omissions of some other proceedings. Those things
have to be considered by the Court at the time of
evidence.
6. What the Court has to see is that on overall
considering the complaint averments and the charge
sheet papers, if there is semblance of material which
particularly attracts Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of DP Act, the Court has to examine the conduct of
accused Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid manner as alleged in
the complaint. Therefore, whether the allegations made
in the complaint amount to cruelty or not, is a matter of
fact which has to be considered by the Court. Therefore,
under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this is not a
fit case wherein the entire charge sheet can be quashed
-7-
when there are certain allegations made in the
complaint. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
following order is made:-
Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear
that the petitioners are at liberty to move the trial Court
for their discharge. The trial Court shall not be
persuaded by any of the observations made by this Court
either at the time of deciding the application for
discharge filed by the petitioners or at the time of
considering the materials on merits of the case.
Consequently, I.A.No.3/2017 is dismissed as it does
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*ck/-