SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Thirthagiri Raj vs The State By Srinivaspura P.S on 10 June, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6482/2015

BETWEEN:
1. THIRTHAGIRI RAJ
S/O L.LAKSHMANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

2. SMT. PUSHPAMMA
THIRTHAGIRI RAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
11-4-213/1
KINDI BASTHI COMMUNITY HALL
LANE-4, CHIKALGUDA
HYDERABAD – 500 003
ANDHRAPRADESH
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VITTAL SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DEEPAK J, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE STATE BY
SRINIVASPURA P.S.
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SMT.N.SARANYA
W/O VIKRAMADITHYA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.62/8
2

YRS BUILDING
RAMAKRISHNA EXTENSION
SRINIVASPURA TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P. FOR R1;
SMT. NALINA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CRIME NO.198/2010 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC, SRINIVASPURA.

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

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Additional SPP

for respondent no.1.

2. Petitioners are accused nos.2 3 in

C.C.No.27/2012 registered for the offences punishable

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

Sections 3 Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Respondent no.2 filed a private complaint against

her husband and the petitioners herein making
3

allegations that after marriage, she was subjected to ill

treatment and harassment. Further, she alleged that the

accused demanded and received cash and gold by way of

dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

averments made in the complaint do not disclose that the

petitioners herein were residing with respondent no.2 at

any point of time. All the allegations made in the

complaint are directed against accused no.1. She has not

cited any acts of cruelty by the petitioners, and as such,

prosecution of the petitioners is motivated and is a sheer

abuse of process of Court and therefore is liable to be

quashed.

5. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel

for respondent no.2 submits that clear and specific

averments are made in the complaint to the effect that

the petitioners also committed the acts of cruelty and

there are clear materials to show that they demanded
4

and received dowry, hence, there is no case for quashing

the proceedings.

6. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent

no.1 however argued in support of the impugned charge

sheet contending that the material on record prima facie

discloses commission of the offence by the petitioners.

7. Considered the submissions and perused the

records.

8. It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 married

accused no.1 on 16.04.2008 at Vellore District, Tamil

Nadu. In the complaint, it is specifically averred that

after marriage, the complainant lived with her husband in

his house at Bargar Town for a period of one year and

after birth of child, respondent no.2 and accused no.1

came to Srinivaspur and resided together. There is

nothing on record to show that petitioners herein resided

with respondent no.2 and her husband at any point of

time. In the complaint lodged by her at the earliest point
5

of time, there are no specific allegations against any one

of the petitioners either with regard to dowry demand or

with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty. On the other

hand, in the complaint, it is specifically stated that

accused no.1 demanded further dowry of `60,000/- and

in para 10, it is stated that with great difficulty the

complainant’s parents gave `60,000/- to open a shop and

to purchase an Apache Two Wheeler to accused no.1 as

dowry. Thus, these averments make out a case insofar

as accused no.1 and not against the petitioners. Even

though in the charge sheet omnibus allegations are made

against the petitioners, the investigating agency has not

produced any material in support of these allegations. All

these circumstances indicate that the prosecution of the

petitioners is motivated and out of spite and intended to

wreak vengeance. Hence to secure the ends of justice

and to prevent abuse of the process of Court, the

impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. In that

view of the matter, the criminal petition is allowed. The
6

proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused

nos.2 3 are quashed. The trial shall continue only

against accused no.1.

In view of disposal of petition, I.A.No.1/2015 filed

for interim stay does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2015 is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hkh.

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

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

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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