-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/-