1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7711/2016
BETWEEN:

1. Sri.Sashidaran Kartha,
S/o K.Keshavan Kartha,
Aged about 57 years,

2. Smt. Chitra Sashidharan
Kartha,
W/o Sri.Sashidaran Kartha,
Aged about 48 years,
Both residing at “Chitra”, 301,
Green Gardens,
Kanishka Road, Vaduthala,
Kochi – 682 023.
Kerala.
… Petitioners

(By Sri.T.V.Vijay Raghavan, Adv.,)

AND:

1. State by Kadugodi Police,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore.

2. Smt.Amritha P.,
W/o Vishwanath Kartha,
Aged about 24 years,
Residing at No.1,
2

Souparnika, 2nd Main Road,
Abbaiaha Reddy Layout,
Kaggadasapura,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 093.
…Respondents

(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.S.P.P. for R1;
Sri S.Vivekananda, for Smt. V.Ganga Bai, Advs., for R2)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the said proceedings in
Cr.No.231/2016 pending on the file of the Addl. C.J.M.,
Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of the FIR

against them in Cr.No.231/2016 for the offence punishable

under Sections 498A and Section506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and

learned Addl. S.P.P. -II for respondent No.1. Perused the

records.

3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose

commission of any of the offences by the petitioners. The

allegations made in the charge-sheet even if accepted on its

face value, would not make out that the petitioners have

committed any act of cruelty or harassment within the

meaning of Section 498A of IPC. There are no allegations

constituting the offence under Sections 3 and Section4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and hence the prosecution of

the petitioners is illegal and abuse of process of court.

4. Disputing the submissions, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 has emphasized that the averments made

in the complaint clearly discloses the ingredients of the

offence under Sections 498A and Section506 of the IPC, as well as

Section 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter is

under investigation. Having regard to the nature of the

allegations made in the complaint there is no justifiable

reason to quash the proceedings and hence, seeks dismissal

of the petition.

4

5. Considered the submissions and perused the

records. From the reading of the complaint, I find that bald

and general allegations are made against the petitioners as

well as the husband of respondent No.2 making an omnibus

allegation that after the marriage, respondent No.2 was

subjected to mental and physical torture at the hands of

her husband and his parents. The complainant has not

cited any specific instances of alleged cruelty or harassment

by the petitioner. Even with regard to the circumstances

under which she left the matrimonial home on 31.07.2016,

she has not stated any incident which prompted her to

leave the matrimonial home. Even in this regard, she has

stated that as she was living under threat to her life, she

called her mother and uncle and on her own she left the

matrimonial home along with her mother and uncle. This

assertion goes to show that no untoward incident had taken

place in the matrimonial house prompting her to leave the

matrimonial home.

5

6. A wholesome reading of the complaint does not

lead to the inference that petitioners herein were

instrumental in causing any act of cruelty or harassment to

respondent No.2/complainant. All the allegations in the

complaint are directed only against accused No.1. All

throughout, it is stated that after the marriage she

discovered that her husband was a drug addict and every

night he used to return home with high dose of ganja.

There are allegations that her husband always used to store

ganja in his house and on several occasions he forced her to

smoke ganja and on one night, he brought food from

outside and made her to eat and after eating it, she fell

sick. All these circumstances are directed against accused

No.1. These allegations go to show that the petitioners

herein were not present during those incidents, which fortify

the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that, the petitioners herein have been residing separately.

Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and

circumstances, I find that, the implication of the petitioners
6

in the alleged offences is wholly baseless, illegal, malafide

and vexatious.

7. Even though FIR is registered for the offence

under Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, there

are not even remote allegations in the complaint

constituting those offences insofar as the petitioners are

concerned. For that matter, even against accused No.1

there are no allegations that at any point of time he

demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or her parents.

On the other hand, the grievance of respondent No.2 is that

the petitioners and her husband were not satisfied with the

quality of the gold brought by her to the matrimonial home.

These allegations even if accepted on their face value, do

not constitute the offence under Sections 3 and Section4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. As a result, there was no basis for

respondent No.1 to register FIR against the petitioners for

the alleged offences.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

7

The FIR in Crime No.231/2016 registered by respondent

No.1 police, pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is quashed

insofar as petitioners Nos.1 and 2(Accused Nos. 2 and 3)

are concerned. Investigation shall proceed only against

accused No.1 in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE
Psg*