SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Srikant Kumar Vadde S/O … vs Smt.Anuradha B W/O Sreekant Kumar … on 20 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100726/2018

BETWEEN

1. SREEKANTH KUMAR VADDE S/O SREERAMULU
AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS,
R/O: #13, 2ND CROSS,
SUMERU NILAYA, 1ST MAIN,
DODDANAKUNDI MAIN ROAD,
OPP: CANARA BANK ATM,
BENGALURU.

2. SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O SREERAMULU
AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS,
R/O: #13, 2ND CROSS,
SUMERU NILAYA, 1ST MAIN,
DODDANAKUNDI MAIN ROAD,
OPP: CANARA BANK ATM,
BENGALURU,
NOW R/O: GANDHINAGAR,
SOMANDEPALLI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT: 65 YEARS,
R/O: #13, 2ND CROSS,
SUMERU NILAYA, 1ST MAIN,
DODDANAKUNDI MAIN ROAD,
OPP: CANARA BANK ATM,
BENGALURU,
2

NOW R/O: GANDHINAGAR, SOMANDEPALLI,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. SUDHEER KUMAR VADDE S/O SREERAMULU
AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS,
R/O: #13, 2ND CROSS,
SUMERU NILAYA, 1ST MAIN,
DODDANAKUNDI MAIN ROAD,
OPP: CANARA BANK ATM,
BENGALURU,
NOW R/O: GANDHINAGAR,
SOMANDEPALLI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SMT Y.MALATHI READDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1. SMT.ANURADHA B.,
W/O SREEKANT KUMAR VADDE
D/O ANJINAPPA V.,
AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
R/O: HOUSE NO.85, WARD NO.21,
B.S. COMPOUND, KAPPAGAL ROAD,
BALLARI.

2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY
ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
REPRESENTING THE PSI,
BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BALLARI.
…..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
(BY SRI VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R-2)
3

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH CRIME NO.28/2017
REGISTERED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, BALLARI
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 504, 323, 498A AND 307 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961
(UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4).

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ON THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime

No.28/2017 of Women Police Station, Ballari

registered against them for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 498A, 307, and 504 read with

Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the D.P.Act’) are before this Court seeking to quash

the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent

No.1 being the wife of petitioner No.1, filed the first

information against accused Nos.1 to 4 on

18.03.2017 stating that she is the wife of accused
4

No.1 and working as Assistant Manager in Vijaya

Bank. Their marriage had taken place on

10.08.2016. Just before the marriage, the accused

demanded for dowry i.e., 40 tolas of gold

ornaments for respondent No.1 and 5 tolas of gold

ornaments for the 1 s t accused. The accused have

also demanded cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and a site.

They have insisted for giving all these valuables,

but however, the marriage was taken place

promising to fulfill their demands. Respondent No.1

spent about Rs.25,00,000/- for the marriage.

Immediately, after marriage, the accused were

insisting her to show her salary slip and demanding

to avail a loan of Rs.6,00,000/-. They were ill-

treating her to insist for a vacant site in Ballari.

3. Informant stated that she availed overdraft

facility and purchased a two wheeler for accused

No.1, by spending Rs.94,000/-. Accused No.1 at the
5

instance of other accused caused forcible

miscarriage and even he tried to cause her death.

Subsequently, the informant started staying in a

paying guest accommodation as she could not

tolerate the ill-treatment and as accused No.1 was

not ready and willing to have a separate residence

nearer to her Bank. There was a panchayat

convened by the elders in the family. In the

meantime, the 1st accused went to Mumbai on

deputation. When the informant called him over

phone, he had not received her phone call. When

the informant called her in-laws over phone, they

again demanded for Rs.6,00,000/- as dowry.

Therefore, she continued to reside in the P.G. and

was attending to her duty. On 01.03.2017, she filed

a complaint against all the accused, but the same

was not registered. Therefore, she requested the

Police to register a case and to initiate legal action
6

against all the accused for the above said offences.

Accordingly, Crime No.28/2017 was registered

against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the above said

offences. Being aggrieved by the same, accused

Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking to quash

the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

4. Heard Smt.Y.Malathi Reddy, learned counsel

for Sri Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Sri Hemanthkumar L.Havaragi,

learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Sri

Vinayak S.Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent

No.2-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1

are the husband and wife and their marriage was

taken place on 10.08.2016. Hardly for about 4

months they lived together in Bengaluru. Since
7

30.12.2016, respondent No.1 is living separately in

a paying guest accommodation. Accused No.1 is

also living in Bengaluru separately. However,

accused Nos.2 to 4 are the residents of the Andhra

Pradesh and they are no way concern to the affairs

of accused No.1 and the informant. False complaint

is lodged against all the family members making

false allegations. Learned counsel submitted that

accused No.1 had sent two legal notices calling

upon his wife to come and join his company, but

there was no response from the wife. In the

meantime, wife filed M.C.No.44/2017 seeking

restitution of conjugal rights, which was came to be

allowed on 01.07.2017. Learned counsel further

submitted that even if the complaint is to be taken

as a whole, none of the panel provisions could be

invoked by the Police. Under such circumstances,

she prays for allowing the petition by quashing the
8

criminal proceedings initiated against all the

accused.

6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for

respondent No.1/informant contended that

admittedly, respondent No.1 and accused No.1 are

wife and husband. Even before their marriage, the

accused have demanded dowry and subsequent to

the marriage, they were ill-treating her. Therefore,

she resided in a paying guest accommodation.

Inspite of panchayat held by the elders, dispute was

not patched-up. The wife filed M.C.No.44/2017 and

the same was allowed on 01.07.2017, inspite of

that, the husband has not restored the conjugal

rights.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further

submitted that the wife has filed the matrimonial

case seeking divorce during 2018, the said petition
9

was allowed exparte. However, accused No.1 filed a

petition seeking to set aside the said order. Learned

counsel further submitted that specific allegations

are made against all the accused. Accused No.1

caused miscarriage to the 1st respondent and

therefore, the accused have to face the trial.

Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

8. Learned AGA for respondent No.2 submits

that immediately after registration of the FIR, the

accused have approached this Court. There was

interim stay granted by this Court. Therefore, the

investigation could not be proceeded with. Under

such circumstances, he prays for passing

appropriate orders.

9. Perused the materials on record. In the

light of the rival submissions, the point that would

arise for my consideration is,
10

“Whether the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 and 4 is liable to be quashed?”

My answer to the above point is ‘partly in the

affirmative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

10. It is the specific contention of respondent

No.1/complainant that accused No.1 being the

husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 being her in-laws

and accused No.4 being the brother-in-law have

demanded dowry even before her marriage and

after the marriage, they were ill-treating her by

demanding dowry. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.1 lived together in Bengaluru hardly

for about 4 months. The first information lodged by

the informant discloses that the allegations are

specifically made against accused No.1. Even

though the allegations are made against accused
11

Nos.2 to 4, it reveals that they are residing

separately at a distinct place.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawn

my attention to the petition filed by respondent

No.1 in D.V.A. Cr.M.C.No.175/2017 during May-

2017, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein, it is

stated that all the accused are the residents of

Ananthapur, whereas, she is the resident of Ballari.

As admitted by both the learned counsels, husband

and wife are residing separately in Bengaluru,

whereas, accused Nos.2 to 4, who are petitioner

Nos.2 to 4 herein are the residents of Andhra

Pradesh. If the allegations made in the complaint

are taken into consideration in the light of these

submissions, I do not find any reason to accept the

contention of respondent No.1 that accused Nos.2

to 4 have committed any offence as alleged.
12

However, there are specific allegations made

against the husband to constitute the offence. The

investigation is not yet undertaken. Under such

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the criminal

proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4 could be

quashed. However, the criminal proceedings against

petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is not liable to be

quashed. Hence, I answer the above point partly in

the affirmative and proceed to pass the following :

ORDER

Petition is allowed in part.

The prayer for quashing the criminal

proceedings registered against petitioner No.1/

accused No.1, in Crime No.28/2017 of Women Police

Station, Ballari for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 498A, 307 and 504 read with Section

34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is

rejected.

13

The prayer for quashing the said criminal

proceedings registered against petitioner Nos.2 to

4/accused Nos.2 to 4 is allowed and the criminal

proceedings initiated against them in the above said

crime number is quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckk

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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