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