1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4968/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Kantharaju.R @ Chikkaboraiah
Aged about 39 years
S/o Late Ramakrishna
2. Smt.Mullamma
Aged about 68 years
W/o. Late Ramakrishna
Petitioner Nos.1 2 are
Residents of Bedaramantapa Road
Chitradurga Town and permanent residents of
Balageri, Ramanagara town, Ramanagara
3. Sri Gopi @ Gopinath, 47 years
S/o Late.Ramakrishna
Resident of Balageri
Ramanagara Town, Ramanagara
4. Sri Jayachandra, 36 years
S/o.late.Ramakrishna
R/o. Kumbara Beedi,
Ramanagara Town, Ramanagara
2
5. Smt.Shakunthala
Aged about 42 years
W/o.Sri.Honnaiah
Resident of Madapura Village
Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk
6. Smt.Saraswathi
Aged about 40 years
W/o.Sri.Puttaswamy
Resident of Jnanajyothinagar
Bengaluru
7. Smt.Vijayalakshmi
Aged about 30 years
W/o.Sri Siddesh
Resident of Bellavara Village
Bikkode Hobli, Beluru Taluk
Hassan District …Petitioners
(By Sri Rajesh.H.N, Adv.,)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Ramanagara Police Station
2. Smt.C.K.Nandhini
Aged about 31 years
W/o.Kantharaju
D/o.Krishna Murthy.C.B
Chikka Balli Village
Keregodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk
Mandya District ..Respondents
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
3
This Criminal Petition is filed Under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the final report submitted by
the respondent No.1 against the petitioners seeking
their prosecution for the commission of alleged offence
p/u/s 3, 4 of D.P.Act and Sec.34, 498A, 504, 323 of
IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for admission
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the court to quash
the proceedings in C.C. No. 473/2017 on the file of the
Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Ramanagara
District and also quash the final report submitted by
the respondent No.1 in the said criminal case for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A, 504, 393 read
with 34 of IPC.
4
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners/accused and also learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
State.
2. Learned counsel submitted that hardly the
complainant stayed in the house of the petitioners only
for a period of one month, thereafter she went back to
her parental house. It is also his contention that false
allegations are made in the complaint that the
petitioners herein insisted her to bring additional dowry
amount and in that connection, they gave ill treatment
and harassment to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel also submitted that earlier
to the complaint, petitioner-1 herein, who is the
husband of the complainant filed a petition before the
Civil Judge Senior Division at Chitradurga under
Section 13-1(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking
5
dissolution of marriage of the petitioner No.1 herein
with the complainant. Hence, learned counsel
contended that as a counter blast to the said
matrimonial petition filed against the complainant, she
has come up with the false allegations and submitted
that the matter requires consideration. There is no
prima facie case in the FIR and other charge sheet
material, hence, submitted that it is the abuse of
process of court to continue the proceedings as against
the petitioners herein.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted referring to the charge sheet
materials that in the complaint there are specific
allegations are made by the complainant against all the
petitioners that they were insisting her to bring
additional dowry amount. There are allegations that
petitioner No.1 assaulted her and he kicked to her
6
private part and other petitioners also ill treated her in
connection with the dowry amount.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
refers to the statement of the witnesses whose
statement has been recorded during investigation by the
Investigating Officer. He also submitted that the
statement of the witnesses are in consistent with the
complaint averments made by the complainant. Hence,
it is the contention that there are prima face materials
collected by the Investigating Officer during the
investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
complaint is without any prima facie materials or it is
abuse of the process of court. Hence, he requested to
reject the petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the
earlier petition filed seeking divorce filed by the
7
petitioner -1 against the complainant and also other
materials produced collected during the investigation. It
is not only the allegations in the complaint but the
statement of the witnesses supports prima facie
contents of the allegations made in the complaint.
7. It is no doubt true that the first petitioner
herein being the husband filed the dissolution of
marriage petition against the complainant earlier to this
petition but only on that ground the entire materials
collected during the investigation which are making out
prima facie cannot be neglected by this Court.
Therefore, considering the materials placed on record by
the prosecution hence, it is not a fit case to quash the
proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as there is
prima facie material made out by the prosecution.
Hence, petition is rejected.
8
Since the main petition is rejected, I.A.No.1/2017
for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly,
I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVK
