SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Sharavana vs State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2020

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.890/2019

BETWEEN :

Sri Sharavana
S/o late Muni Swamy
Aged about 37 years
R/at No.44, Hombegowda Slum
Jayanagar, 9th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 011.
… Petitioner
(By Sri Rajashekara R.V., Advocate)

AND :

1. State of Karnataka
by Basavanagudi Mahila Police Station, Bengaluru,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 004.

2. Valli W/o Rama Swamy
Aged about 53 years
R/at No.41, 7th Cross,
Hombegowdanagar
Slum, 1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 011.
… Respondents
(By Sri Vijaykumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1;
vide order dated 2.1.2020 Notice to R2 dispensed with)
-2-

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings pending
in C.C.No.2298/2018 Annexure-A on the file of the
learned II Addl. Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
which is registered against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 304B r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.

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

ORDER

The present petition is filed by accused No.3 under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire

proceedings pending in CC.No.2298/2018, on the file of

the II Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w. Section 34 of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused No.3 and the learned Additional SPP

for respondent No.1-State. Notice to respondent No.2 is

dispensed with.

-3-

3. The brief facts of the case are that aunt of the

deceased Smt.Vijaya filed a complaint alleging that the

marriage of the deceased was got performed with

accused No.1 six months prior to the alleged incident. At

the time of marriage, some gold articles and cash were

given in the form of dowry. Accused persons used to ill-

treat and harass the deceased. They used to assault and

scold her in filthy language. They also used to pressurize

her to bring additional dowry. Due to the said

harassment by the accused, on 5.3.2007 at about 4.30

p.m., deceased committed suicide by strangulating

herself. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was

registered and after completion of investigation, charge

sheet has been filed as against the accused.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for

the petitioner-accused No.3 that accused No.1 is the

main accused who is none other than the husband of the

deceased. The case was tried before the Fast Track

Court in SC.No.169/2009. By the order dated 8.9.2010,
-4-

accused No.1 came to be acquitted. In the said case,

prosecution got examined 10 witnesses and marked 10

documents. All the material witnesses have not

supported the case of the prosecution and they have

been treated as hostile. Except the evidence of the

official witnesses, there is no material as against the

petitioner-accused No.3 and on the date of the alleged

incident and prior to the said date, petitioner was also

not residing along with the deceased and accused No.1.

No overt acts are alleged as against the petitioner-

accused No.3. When all the witnesses have not

supported the case of the prosecution and they have

been treated as hostile, even if the trial is held as against

the petitioner-accused No.3, no useful purpose would be

served. In order to meet the ends of justice, the power

under Section 482 may be exercised by this Court and

proceedings as against the petitioner may be quashed.

On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
-5-

5. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP has

vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-

accused No.3 is absconding and NBW is issued as against

him. He has not appeared before the Court. The said

conduct of the petitioner appears to be abuse of process

of law. On these grounds, he prayed that no good

grounds are made out by the petitioner-accused No.3 to

quash the proceedings in question.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional SPP and perused

the papers including the certified copy of the judgment

passed in SC.No.169/2009, dated 8.9.2010. On going

through the said judgment, the prosecution got

examined 10 witnesses. The complainant and other

relatives of the deceased and the panch witnesses have

not supported the case of the prosecution and they have

been treated as hostile. The main accused is none other

than the husband of the deceased who has already been

acquitted by the Court below, by holding that there is no
-6-

material as against accused No.1. I am conscious of the

fact that while exercising the power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., the Court has to look into the entire material on

record. If the witnesses are examined subsequently and

their evidence gives any incriminating material as against

the accused, then under such circumstances the

proceedings can be initiated against the co-accused. But,

in the present case, the complainant has not deposed

any thing as against accused No.1. who is the main

accused. She has deposed before the Court that the

accused have not demanded dowry and ornaments. She

does not know as to why accused No.1 has ill-treated the

deceased. She also does not know as to why the

deceased committed suicide. When such an evidence is

produced before the Court and if again the trial is held

as against the petitioner-accused No.3, it is nothing but

waste of judicial time and it is a futile exercise as against

the petitioner.

-7-

7. When a trial is held as against the petitioner-

accused, then there is no useful purpose in holding the

retrial, the petitioner-accused No.3 cannot be asked to

appear before the Court and to face the trial. Hence, I

am of the considered opinion that the petitioner-accused

No.3 has made out a case to exercise the power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C by this Court.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The entire

proceedings in CC.No.2298/2018, pending on the file of

the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 304B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act, stand quashed in so far as the

petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*ck/-

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation