Karnataka High Court
Swaroop M S vs State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10161 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SWAROOP M.S.
S/O T.MANJUNATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. SMT. SHOBHA RAO,
W/O T.MANJUNATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3. T. MANJUNATHA RAO,
S/O LATE S.THUKKOJ RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT No.23/2,
MATHRUKRUPA, 11TH CROSS,
Digitally 80 FEET ROAD, GIRINAGAR,
signed by
KIRAN 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560 085.
KUMAR R ...PETITIONERS
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI. S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
COURT OF SMT. ANKITHA G.SHELKE, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR P.S.
BANGALORE-560 072
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021
2. SMT. HARSHITHA BEDRE,
W/O SWAROOP M.S.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT No.261, PAAVANA
1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA.M., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.32372/2021 UNDER SECTION 498A
OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT PENDING BEFORE
THE V A.C.M.M., BENGALURU OF THE RESPONDENT No.1
POLICE I.E., ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER
COMMENSURATING WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The husband of the complainant and his parents are before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against them for offences under Section 498A of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021
2. It is not in dispute that on 16.05.2019, the wedding took place between the complainant and the 1st accused.
3. It is also not in dispute that on 26.04.2021, the wife had lodged a complaint wherein she contended that she had come out of her matrimonial house about three months ago since her father was unwell, and that her husband and in-laws were visiting her now and then. She stated that on one day, when she went to her matrimonial house with her parents, her husband and her in-laws did not allow her to enter the house, following which she requested the police to summon and advise them accordingly. The police registered this complaint as a non- cognizable report.
4. On the very next day i.e., on 27.04.2021, the husband had, in turn, lodged a complaint with the police against the wife and his in-laws, contending that the wife and his in-laws were arriving at his house to create a scene, after which he requested the police to summon and advise them to not disturb him and his parents. In this -4- NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 complaint, he also sated that his wife's behaviour was improper and that she was in the habit of threatening his parents that she would commit suicide and, despite bringing this to the notice of his in-laws, no action had been taken against her, as a consequence of which he had dropped his wife back to her parents' house.
5. It may be pertinent to state here that in both these complaints, neither the husband nor the wife made any allegations about any dowry being demanded or paid. In fact, a reading of said complaints would indicate that there was a difference of opinion between the husband and the wife in various aspects, and that they were residing separately.
6. About three months thereafter, i.e., on 08/07/2021, the husband initiated proceedings for dissolution of their marriage in M.C.No.3165/2021 on the ground that he had been treated cruelly by his wife, and in the week immediately thereafter, on 15.07.2021, the wife lodged a complaint that her husband and the in-laws demanded -5- NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 dowry of Rs.25 lakhs in cash, 1 kg. of gold ornaments and 10 kgs of silver articles, and that after some negotiations, a dowry of Rs.10 lakhs, 400 gms. of gold ornaments and 2 kgs. of silver articles were agreed to be given. She has thereafter gone on to state that she was subjected to continuous harassment by her husband and the in-laws, and was thus constrained to approach the police. The police on the basis of this complaint registered the FIR.
7. During the course of investigation, the police have admittedly seized 24 gold articles and a cash of Rs.56,500/- and 29 silver articles, apart from several documents.
8. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been laid against the husband and the in-laws.
9. Aggrieved by said proceedings, the husband and his parents are before this Court.
10. In support of the arguments advanced, the following citations have also been produced before this Court: -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 a. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472 - the Supreme Court considered the judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar1 vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC and the significant filing of frivolous petitions thereunder, to frame guidelines in that regard;
b. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599: the Supreme Court rendered findings on the absence of specific allegations against the accused therein and quashed the proceedings accordingly;
c. Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Crl. Rev. No.521 of 2021: the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498- A of the IPC initiated as a counter-blast to the suit filed by the husband for divorce and observed that the same was a mere afterthought;
d. Nagesh Gundayal & Ors. v. the State and Ors., Crl.P. No.201257 of 2019 c/w Crl.P. No.200660 of 2019: a co-ordinate bench of this Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the wife against her husband and her in-laws in respect of cruelty and dowry harassment, taking into consideration the fact 1 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 that the same was initiated after the wife received a notice for divorce from the husband; and e. Pramod R. S. v. the State of Karnataka & Anr., Crl.P. No. 1511 of 2023: a co-ordinate bench of this Court held that the examination of a complaint in terms of the offence(s) alleged (re: Section 307, the IPC therein) is necessary and the ingredients of the offence(s) alleged cannot be ignored merely because such complaint was registered following a notice for divorce.
11. It may be pertinent to state here that this petition was filed in the year 2021 for quashing of the proceedings, and about two years thereafter, the wife has, in fact, initiated proceedings for restitution of her conjugal rights in M.C.No.7357/2023 and it is stated that said proceedings are still pending adjudication.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that initiation of criminal proceedings was fundamentally because the husband had initiated proceedings for dissolution of marriage. He submitted that the fact that the wife had lodged a complaint on -8- NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 26.04.2021 wherein there was absolutely no allegation made in respect of dowry, and on the very next day, the husband also lodged a complaint contending that the wife and his in-laws were arriving at his house and creating a scene, by themselves clearly establish that there could have been no allegation of dowry made against the husband and the in-laws.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that in the criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court, an application was made by the husband for release of the articles seized by the police during investigation. He also submitted that the husband had also filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate stating that he was claiming only item Nos.5, 8, 10, 14, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 23, 24, 25, 46, 47, 50 and 52, and that he would be satisfied if those articles were released and the wife could be permitted to take possession of the remaining articles. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021
14. It may also be pertinent to state here that the wife had also made an application to claim the articles that were seized by the police during investigation.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the wife, however, contended that there were abundant materials to justify the prosecution against the husband and the in-laws. He also submitted that pursuant to the investigation, statements were recorded which clearly indicated that there was indeed a demand for dowry, which had also been paid, and there was thus no justification for entertaining this petition.
16. As stated above, it is not in dispute that the wife did give a complaint against the husband and her in-laws on 26.04.2021 and, at that point in time, she made no allegations of any kind regarding a claim for dowry or for such dowry having been paid. A reading of said complaint would indicate at that point in time, all that the wife wanted was to get back to her matrimonial home and for the same, she sought the intervention of the police.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021
17. This complaint was responded to by the husband with a counter complaint, in which he stated that the wife was misbehaving with him and with his parents, and that she was thus sent back to her parents' home, but she had come to their house along with her parents to create a scene and started an altercation. These set of admitted facts relating to the month of April, 2021 indicates that there was no element of criminality involved in the conduct of either of the parties. The fact that the proceedings were initiated about three months thereafter, for dissolution of their marriage, appears to be the spark which has resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings as a retaliatory measure.
18. The fact that the criminal proceedings were initiated within a week after the initiation of proceedings for divorce is, by itself, a clear indication that the entire act of lodging a complaint was a retaliatory measure. In my view, since the criminal proceedings were initiated after the initiation of the proceedings for divorce and given the background of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 complaints and counter complaints in April, 2021 where there were no allegations of any kind made regarding the criminality exhibited by either of the parties, there is absolutely no justification for sustaining the criminal proceedings.
19. It is settled law that a criminal proceeding cannot be utilised by either party to a marriage as a means of securing relief which is not really related to any crime but is only designed to pressurize the spouse into submission.
20. The statements which have been recorded by the investigating authorities would have no relevance, given the fact that at the earliest point in time (in April, 2021) when there was admittedly a marital discord, no allegations of dowry were made.
21. One other important factor to arrive at the above inference is the initiation of proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights by the wife after she had initiated criminal proceedings for dowry harassment. In a case
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 where the wife, after initiation of criminal proceedings and during the pendency of a criminal petition filed by her husband seeking to quash said proceedings, decides to file a petition for restitution of her conjugal rights, the only inference that can be drawn is that the allegations that she had made earlier regarding demand of dowry/dowry harassment were untenable and was only a retaliatory measure. The fact that the wife sought the intervention of a Court to ensure that her conjugal rights were restored, would by itself falsify her allegations regarding dowry harassment.
22. I am therefore of the view that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners are mala fide and clearly abuse the process of the Court, and they are liable to be quashed. Thus, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein are accordingly quashed.
23. However, it is also to be noticed that the police during the course of investigation did seize several gold ornaments and the 1st petitioner has, by filing an affidavit
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067 CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021 before the learned Magistrate, restricted his claim only in respect of certain articles by producing supporting documents to substantiate that he had purchased many of them even before his marriage.
24. In my view, it would appropriate to direct the learned Magistrate to release item Nos.5, 8, 10, 14, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 23, 24, 25, 46, 47, 50 and 52 (item Nos.14 and 23 were repeated, but the articles were different) mentioned in the affidavit filed before the Magistrate in favour of the husband as sought by him and to release the remaining articles to the wife.
25. With the above observations, this petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS