SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tharanath vs State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8466/2016 C/w
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8467/2016

In Crl.P. No.8466/2016

BETWEEN:

1. Tharanath,
S/o Rangappa,
Aged about 30 years,

2. Rangappa,
S/o Mahadevappa,
Aged about 64 years,

3. Basamma,
W/o Rangappa,
Aged about 62 years,

All are R/at 7th Cross,
Maruthi Nagar,
Chitradurga Town,
Chitradurga – 577 501. …Petitioners

(By Sri. Mohan Kumara .D, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,
By Chitradurga Town,
Police Station,
2

Chitradurga – 577 501.
Represented by HCGP
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001.

2. Smt. Kavya
W/o Tharanath,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at V.P. Extension, 2nd Cross,
Opposite to Forest Quarters,
Chitradurga Town,
Chitradurga – 577 501. …Respondents

(By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-1
Sri. Praveen .C, Advocate for R-2)

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.
No.164/2016 initiated for the offence punishable under
Section 12(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 pending on the file of II Additional Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga.

In Crl.P. No.8467/2016

BETWEEN:

1. Tharanath,
S/o Rangappa,
Aged about 30 years,

2. Rangappa,
S/o Mahadevappa,
Aged about 64 years,

3. Basamma,
W/o Rangappa,
Aged about 62 years,
3

All are R/at 7th Cross,
Maruthi Nagar,
Chitradurga Town,
Chitradurga – 577 501. …Petitioners

(By Sri. Mohan Kumara .D, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,
By Chitradurga Town ,
Police Station,
Chitradurga – 577 501.
Represented by HCGP
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001.

2. Smt. Kavya,
W/o Tharanath,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at V.P. Extension, 2nd Cross,
Opposite to Forest Quarters,
Chitradurga Town,
Chitradurga – 577 501. …Respondents

(By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-1
Sri. Praveen .C, Advocate for R-2)

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.
No.874/2016 initiated in pursuance of the Crime
No.532/2015 for the offences punishable under
Sections
498(A),
323, 342, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the file of Principal/II Addl.
Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga.
4

These Criminal petitions coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

In both these petitions accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have

sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in

Crl.Misc.No.164/2016 registered under Section 12(1) of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and

C.C.No.874/2016 registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned SPP-II

for respondent No.1.

3. Respondent No.2 – Smt. Kavya, lodged a

complaint before the Chitradurga Police on 11.12.2015

wherein she alleged that she married accused No.1

(petitioner No.1) on 07.09.2014. At the time of marriage,

accused persons demanded and received dowry of 12 tolas

of gold and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. After marriage, she was
5

subjected to ill-treatment and harassment. Three months

after the incident, accused No.1 set up a separate house to

her in Bengaluru. But, even thereafter, at the instance of

accused Nos.2 and 3, he continued ill-treatment and

harassment to respondent No.2. It is further alleged that

on 04.12.2015, her parents had come to her house at

Bengaluru and accused No.1 insulted them and hence, they

went back to Chitradurga. On the same day, accused No.1

brought her to the house of accused Nos.2 and 3, where the

accused persons once again made a demand for additional

dowry and confined her in a room for four days.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit

that the allegations made against the petitioners are false

and baseless. Respondent No.2 was residing separately

with accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) at Bengaluru and there

was no occasion for accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners no.2

and 3) either to make a demand for additional dowry or to

confine her in the room as alleged in the complaint. The

statement of respondent No.2 suffer from serious
6

contradictions and improbabilities, yet the learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences

against all the accused and hence, he seeks to quash the

proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2

submits that the contents of the complaint as well as the

statement of the witnesses make out all the ingredients of

the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation,

charge sheet is lodged against the petitioners. The said

charge sheet reinforces the allegations. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioners that a false case has been

registered against them cannot be accepted and thus, seeks

for dismissal of the petitions.

6. On going through the materials on record, there

is no dispute with regard to the fact that respondent No.2

married accused No.1 on 07.09.2014 and thereafter, she

stayed with the accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.2 and

3) only for a period of three months at Chitradurga.
7

According to her, three months after the marriage, accused

No.1 set up a separate house for her in Bengaluru and both

of them were residing in Bengaluru. Her allegation against

accused No.1 is that he continued his ill-treatment and

harassment to her even at Bengaluru. The allegations in so

far as accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.1 and 2) are

concerned, do not find any supporting evidence either in the

complaint or in the material produced by the Investigating

Agency. Except making bald allegations that at the instance

of his parents, accused No.1 was subjecting her to ill-

treatment and harassment, the complainant has not

narrated any specific instance of abetment by accused

Nos.2 and 3. On the other hand, the circumstances

narrated in the complaint and the charge sheet indicate that

all throughout accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing at

Chitradurga. Therefore, the allegations made against

accused Nos.2 and 3 that they had confined the

complainant-respondent No.2 in a room at Chitradurga also

appears to be highly improbable and unbelievable.

According to the complainant, on 04.12.2015, her parents
8

had come to her house at Bengaluru. Her complaint is

silent as to when and at what time her parents i.e., CW6

and CW7 had come to her house. As narrated by her in the

complaint, on the same day after 07.30 P.M. she was taken

to Chitradurga and was confined in the house, appears to be

far from truth.

7. From the reading of the charge sheet, it can be

safely held that accused Nos.2 and 3 are sought to be

implicated in the alleged offences solely on account of their

relationship with accused No.1. The material allegations are

directed only against accused No.1 and having regard to

the circumstances discussed above, there was no occasion

for accused Nos.2 and 3 to commit the alleged offences.

For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution

initiated against accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.2 and

3) is nothing but an abuse of Court and therefore cannot be

allowed to continue.

8. Thus, taking into consideration all the above

facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the
9

proceedings initiated against accused No.1-husband

(petitioner No.1) deserves to be continued whereas the

proceedings initiated against accused Nos.2 and 3

(petitioner Nos.2 and 3) is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, petitions are allowed in part. The

proceedings initiated in Crl.Mis.164/2016 and

C.C.No.874/2016 are hereby quashed only insofar as

accused Nos.2 and 3 (petitioners No.2 and 3) are

concerned. The proceedings against accused No.1-

Sri.Taranatha (petitioner No.1), shall be continued in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SV

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh