Karnataka High Court
Smt Lalitha Sancheti vs State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
R
CRL.P.4890/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRL.P.No.4890/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Smt Lalitha Sancheti,
W/o Sri Chhaganraj Sancheti,
Aged 57 years,
Occupation: Household work,
Residing at No.46,
Flat No.402, Perfecta Classica Apts.
Sajjan Rao Road, V.V.Puram,
Bengaluru-560 004.
2. Chhaganraj Sancheti,
S/o Vastimal Sancheti,
Aged 59 years,
Occupation: Business,
Residing at No.46,
Flat No.402, Perfecta Classica Apts.
Sajjan Rao Road, V.V.Puram,
Bengaluru-560 004.
3. Gourav Sancheti,
S/o Chhaganraj Sancheti,
Aged 34 years,
Occupation: Private Service,
Residing at No.46,
Flat No.402, Perfecta Classica Apts.
Sajjan Rao Road, V.V.Puram,
Bengaluru-560 004.
4. Mahaveer Dungarwal,
S/o J.Sampathraj,
Aged 61 years,
Occupation: Business,
CRL.P.4890/2018
2
Residing at No.10,
Punam Plaza, Chickpet,
Bengaluru-560 053.
5. Ramesh Dungarwal,
S/o J.Sampathraj,
Aged 53 years,
Occupation: Business,
Residing at No.1,
Park Road, Tasker Town,
Shivajinagar,
Bengaluru-560 051. ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri Prasanna Kumar .P, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Visveshwarapuram Police Station,
Visveshwarapuram Sub-Division,
Bengaluru City
Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Bldg.,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Smt.Unnati Vinay Sancheti,
W/o Vinay Sancheti,
Aged 34 years,
Occupation: Housewife,
Residing at No.14/2,
M.M.Vidyalaya Road, V.V.Puram,
Bangalore-560 004.
Earlier R/at No.46, Flat No.402,
Perfecta Apartment
Sajjan Rao Road, V.V.Puram,
Bengaluru City-560 002. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R1;
Sri H.C.Nataraj, Adv. for R2)
CRL.P.4890/2018
3
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
praying to quash the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the
learned XXIV ACMM, Bangalore City in C.C.No.25556/2017,
thereby taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence
P/U/S 498A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, and
ordering to register criminal case and issue summons.
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners who are
arrayed as accused nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.25556/2017
arising out of Crime No.10/2017 registered by V.V.Puram
Police for the offences punishable under Section 498A of
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
seeking quashing of the proceedings in
C.C.No.25556/2017 pending before the XXIV Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Brief facts of the case:
Respondent no.2 - Smt. Unnati Vinay Sancheti is
none other than the daughter-in-law of petitioners 1 & 2
CRL.P.4890/2018
and sister-in-law of petitioner no.3, and petitioners 4 & 5
are the brothers of petitioner no.1. Respondent no.2 along
with her husband had filed a suit in O.S.No.7832/2016
against her in-laws and so also other relatives seeking
injunction in respect of the house property owned and
occupied by petitioners 2 & 3. In the said suit, the interim
applications filed in IA Nos.1 & 2 by respondent no.2 was
rejected on 07.09.2017 holding that respondent no.2 was
not in possession of the apartment building and it was in
fact petitioner no.3 along with their family which was
residing in the said premises. Thereafter, respondent no.2
has lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police
against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences
under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, based on which Crime
No.10/2017 came to be registered.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of
respondent no.2 was solemnized with the son of
petitioners 1 & 2 and that during March 2012 at the time
of marriage talks, accused nos.1 to 5 demanded gold
CRL.P.4890/2018
ornaments weighing 1/2 kg, silver articles weighing 20 kg
be given to the husband of respondent no.2 and marriage
was solemnized at Palace Grounds. It is the further case of
the prosecution that thereafter, the father of respondent
no.2 has given 300 gms gold ornaments and silver
ornaments weighing 10 kgs to the husband of respondent
no.2 and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was also given towards
marriage expenses. It is the further case of the prosecution
that the husband of respondent no.2 purchased an
apartment in the name of accused no.3 and that accused
nos.1 to 5 demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards dowry
and as respondent no.2 was not able to give the said
amount, respondent no.2 and her husband were thrown
out of the house by accused nos.1 to 5. With these
allegations, the respondent-Police filed charge sheet
against the petitioners.
4. Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the alleged incident of demanding
dowry and that respondent no.2 and her husband being
thrown from the residential house is said to have taken
CRL.P.4890/2018
place on 11.09.2016, and whereas the complaint has been
filed by respondent no.2 on 04.11.2016, nearly two
months after the alleged date of incident. That apart, the
First Information Report is filed by the respondent-Police
on 17.01.2017 i.e., nearly two months after the filing of the
complaint. He submits that even if the entire case of the
prosecution is accepted to be true, the same do not
disclose commission of offence as alleged by the
prosecution. He further submits that respondent no.2
having failed to get an injunction order in the aforesaid
civil case, thereafter, she has filed the present frivolous
complaint against her own in-laws and relatives, and that
the learned Magistrate without appreciating the same, has
taken cognizance against the petitioners herein, which is
an abuse of the process of law. He further submits that
petitioners are the in-laws of respondent no.2 and
petitioner no.3 is the brother-in-law of respondent no.2
and as the in-laws of respondent no.2 stood by petitioner
no.3 in the family dispute, a false case has been foisted by
respondent no.2 against her own in-laws in order to
CRL.P.4890/2018
humiliate and harass them. On these premises, seeking
quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against
them being an accused.
5. Learned HCGP for the State who has countered the
arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the FIR came to be registered based on the
complaint filed by respondent no.2 and that materials have
been secured during the course of investigation and that
the said material will have to be submitted before the
Court by the prosecution during trial, and that at this
stage, no conclusion could be arrived that there are no
sufficient materials to constitute the alleged offences under
Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
6. Sri H.C.Nataraj, learned Counsel for respondent no.2
who is present before the Court physically, though his role
under Section 301 Cr.PC is very limited to the extent of
assisting the learned HCGP, submits that the suit is filed
for the relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule
CRL.P.4890/2018
properties and that the said suit is pending adjudication
between the parties. In addition to that submission, he
submits that respondent no.2 has also filed a suit in
O.S.No.437/2019 for the relief of partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties. He further
submits that the pendency of the said suits do not come in
the way of the trial in C.C.No.25556/2017, and therefore,
prays to dismiss the petition.
7. In the above backdrop of the contentions addressed
by the learned Counsel for the parties, it has to be stated
here that the power of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.PC to quash the criminal proceedings at the stage of
FIR and so also at the stage of C.C. is distinct and different
from the power of the criminal court. The Apex Court in
the case of ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA & ANOTHER VS STATE
(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI), DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND
ANOTHER - AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that there is nothing
in the words of Section 482 Cr.PC which restricts the
exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of
process of Court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage
CRL.P.4890/2018
of FIR. The High Court can exercise jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.PC even if the charge sheet is filed. In this
judgment, the Apex Court has referred to the judgments
reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, AIR 1992 SC 604 , AIR
2000 SC 754, AIR 2006 SC 2780, 2013 AIR SCW 6062 and
AIR 2014 SC 1106.
8. In the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS NEPC INDIA
LTD. & OTHERS - AIR 2006 SC 2780, it is held by the Apex
Court that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. The Court noticed a growing
trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute
into criminal cases.
9. In the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS L.MUNISWAMY
& OTHERS - AIR 1977 SC 1489, it is held as under:
"7. ......In the exercise of this
wholesome power, the High Court is entitled
to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
CRL.P.4890/2018
continue would be an abuse of the process of
the Court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The
saving of the High Court's inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed
to achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or prosecution. In a criminal
case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material
on which the structure of the prosecution
rests and the like would justify the High Court
in quashing the proceeding in the interest of
justice. ......"
10. In the instant case, the FIR filed by the respondent-
Police based on the complaint of respondent no.2 is
absurd and improper, on perusal of which, any prudent
man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Respondent no.2 has maliciously filed the complaint with
an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the accused
and on account of personal grudge against them. In the
CRL.P.4890/2018
present case, the criminal law is set in motion by
respondent no.2 who is none other than the daughter-in-
law of accused 1 & 2 and sister-in-law of accused no.3,
and accused nos.4 & 5 are the brothers of accused no.1.
The said act of filing the complaint by respondent no.2
against her family members is in continuation of the civil
proceedings instituted by her against the very family
members for injunction. That apart, though it is alleged in
the complaint that the alleged incident of demanding
dowry and that respondent no.2 and her husband being
thrown from the residential house is said to have taken
place on 11.09.2016, the complaint has been filed by
respondent no.2 only on 04.11.2016 and the First
Information Report is filed by the respondent-Police on
17.01.2017. There is no explanation forthcoming either
from the complainant or from the prosecution with regard
to the aforesaid delay. That apart, the allegations made in
the FIR do not disclose the ingredients of the offence under
Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. The act of
respondent no.2 in setting the criminal law into motion is
CRL.P.4890/2018
only with a view to give physical and mental harassment to
the accused. It has to be further stated that no material is
produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet
to come to a conclusion that the ingredients of the offence
alleged against the accused prima facie appear to be true.
11. It has to be therefore held that the registration of FIR
and initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused
based on the complaint of respondent no.2 is only to
convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases and which
is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
Therefore, though the charge sheet is filed, the travesty to
hold the proceedings against the accused can be
interefered even the allegations have materialized into a
charge sheet. On the contrary, it could be said that the
abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the
FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after
investigation. The power under Section 482 Cr.PC is
undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of
power of any court.
CRL.P.4890/2018
12. For all the reasons stated supra, I find that the
prosecution against the accused is malafide, untenable
and solely intended to harass the accused. Accordingly, I
have to pass the following order:
This criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC
is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.25556/2017
pending on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.10/2017
registered by V.V.Puram Police for the offences punishable
under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against accused nos.1 to 5, is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
