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