Sri Ramaprasad vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 561 Kant

                              :1:             R
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3140 OF 2016

BETWEEN
1.    Sri. Ramaprasad
      S/o Raghavendra Rao
      Aged about 76 years
      R/at No.804, 5th Main
      4th Cross, Vijaynagar
      Bangalore - 40.

2.    Smt. Padma
      W/o Ramaprasad
      Aged about 68 years
      R/at No.804, 5th Main
      4th Cross, Vijaynagar
      Bangalore - 40.
                                         ... Petitioners
(By Sri. G.S. Balagangadhar, Advocate)

AND
1.    The State of Karnataka
      Represented by its
      State Public Prosecutor
      High Court of Karnataka
      Bangalore - 560 001.

2.    Smt. Shruthi Antapnal
      W/o Sri Mukund Ramaprasad
      Aged about 31 years
      R/at Door No.77, Mathrukripa
                             :2:



     Malagala Main Road, 8th Block
     2nd Stage Nagarbhavi
     Banglaore - 72.
                                             ... Respondents

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R-1;
    Sri. Chandrashekar - Advocate for R-2)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.8792/2015 pending on the
file of the IX ACMM, Bangalore.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Final Hearing,
this day, the court made the following:


                        ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioners /Accused Nos.1

and 2 seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings in

C.C.No.8792/2015 pending on the file of the IX Addl.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of

the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners /

Accused Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel for Respondent

No.2 / complainant and the learned HCGP for the State.

The petitioners herein / Accused Nos.2 and 3 are

the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the

second respondent / complainant namely Smt. Shruthi

Antapnal.

3. It transpires from the case of the prosecution that

the complaint was filed by the complainant - Smt. Shruthi

Antapnal, the second respondent herein alleging that she

had married one Mukund Ramprasad and their marriage

was performed on 30.11.2008 at Bangalore as per the

customs prevailing in their society. Immediately after

marriage, she began residing with her husband at her

matrimonial home. But however, after marriage, it is

stated that her husband and in laws started ill-treating

her and were causing intolerable mental torture. Though

at the time of marriage talks they did not make any dowry

demands, this changed gradually and they had demanded

that all the expenditure required to be borne by her

parents as regards engagement and marriage. Further,

her parents had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards engagement. It is stated in the complaint that the

petitioners herein / her in-laws had demanded everything

to be of their choice and her parents had fulfilled all the

demands in the fond hope that their daughter would be

happy in her in-laws house. That the entire expenditure

of the marriage such as marriage hall, jewellery,

decorations, transportation, etc., amounting to

Rs.15,00,000/- was borne by the second respondent's

parents. Immediately after marriage, that the second

petitioner / accused No.3 had discontinued the services of

the house maid and had forced the second respondent to

do all the household chores saying that it would save the

money and it was the duty of the daughter-in-law to do all

the household work. They had also demanded her to quit

her job as a Software Engineer, which she refused, being

one of the reasons for them to ill-treat her. Further, they

had started forcing her to ask for the daughter's share in

her father's house, to which the complainant had refused.

However, they had forced her several times to give them

the money that she earned and was saving and

accordingly, she had also paid several amounts by way of

cheques in favour of her husband Mukund and mother in

law Padma Prasad, which is detailed in a Tabular column

in paragraph 7 of her complaint. But however, the

harassment is said to have continued and it is stated that

accused no.1 had even recorded conversations between

herself and her husband both public and private and also

conversations with strangers about their marriage and

would show it to his mother and they would then consult

lawyers and then prepare as to how to terminate Shruthi

Antapnal's marriage with Mukund. Her complaint consist

of seven sheets and in the last page of her complaint she

has specifically stated in her hand-writing that the delay

in filing her complaint against him was thinking that

Accused No.1 would change his behaviour but she is filing

the complaint since she did not find any improvement in

him. Hence, she had requested the Station House Officer,

Jnanabharathi P.S., Bangalore, to take necessary legal

action against them in C.C.No.8792/2015 arising out of

Cr.No.369/2013 registered by the Jnanabharathi P.S.,

Bangalore, for the offences reflected in the FIR said to

have been recorded by the police. These are all the

allegations made in the complaint filed by Shruthi

Antapnal / Respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me

through the averments made in the complaint filed by

Shruthi Antapnal, wife of Mukund who is arraigned as

Accused No.1 in C.C.No.8792/2015. The second

respondent in her complaint has specifically stated that

her husband and his parents initially though did not

make any demand for dowry, this had changed gradually

and they had started demanding things specifically as

regards the location for the engagement and also

demanded that the entire expenditure be borne by her

parents. Accordingly, the entire expenditure of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards engagement was borne by her

parents. It is also relevant to refer to paragraph 13 of her

typed complaint stating that her mother-in-law used to

force her to ask for a share from her parent's property.

When she refused, they are alleged to have harassed her.

The complainant's husband used to join his mother

whenever she used to scold the complainant and used to

harass her. However, there is no crime registered by filing

a complaint by this Shruthi Antapnal who is arraigned as

Respondent No.2 in this petition prior to the present

complaint filed by her.

In respect of these allegations, it is contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that even at a cursory

glance of the hand-written statement at paragraph 7 of

the complaint, reveals that the allegations are only against

her husband Mukund to take appropriate legal action

against him. It does not specifically state about her in-

laws who were arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3 in

C.C.No.8792/2015 arising out of Cr.No.369/2013

registered by the Jnanabharathi P.S., Bangalore, for the

offences reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by

the police.

5. It is further contended that after several due

deliberations and the elders and well-wishers citing that

her in-laws were the main reason for the sufferings, had

suggested the husband and wife to live in a separate

house and though they started living in a separate house,

again, her husband Mukund did not stop his harassment

and started picking up fights with the second respondent,

which has been stated at paragraph 18 of her complaint.

Even prior to the filing of this complaint dated

28.09.2013, she did not file any written complaint or any

oral complaint before the police having jurisdiction to

register the crime against the accused. That itself

indicates that her modus operandi is only to rope her in-

laws as accused in C.C.No.8792/2015 arising out of

Cr.No.369/2013. On this premise alone, power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings

against Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 and 3, ought to be

exercised.

6. Apart from these grounds urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, he has also referred to

Document No.2 of M.C.No.33/2013. This petition is filed

by Mukund, the husband of Shruthi Antapnal under

Section 3(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.

Though this petition has been withdrawn as this

submission is made by the respondent and also indicates

that in this petition seeking dissolution of her marriage

dated 30.11.2018 held between Mukund and Shruthi

Antapnal.

It is relevant to state that Smt. Shruthi Antapnal

had given birth to a female baby, which child is in the care

and custody of her mother. However, there is a family

dispute emerged in between Mukund / accused No.1 and

Smt. Shruthi Antapnal who is none other than the wife of

Mukund. But the present petitioners have been unfairly

lugged in the alleged crime which involves between the

husband and wife, which has caused mental harassment

to the petitioners / in-laws of Shruthi Antapnal. There is

no specific overt act attributed against petitioners /

Accused Nos.2 and 3 that they had committed offences

under Section 498-A IPC and so also under Sections 3

and 4 of the DP Act. The complaint has been filed by the

second respondent arraigning the petitioners as well in

order to wreck vengeance for the divorce petition filed by

their son Mukund / accused no.1 in C.C.No.8792/2015.

A prudent man can infer that the allegations made out in

the complaint are baseless and concocted for the purpose

of initiating false criminal proceedings.

The complainant has initiated proceedings against

the petitioners just to harass her husband and his family

members by implicating them for the allegations that they

have given physical as well as mental harassment and

also were demanding money. When there is no specific

allegation made in the complaint, certainly it can be

inferred that the complaint filed by her is just to cause

harassment to the petitioners, which is an abuse of

process of law. Therefore, it requires intervention of this

court by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if

not, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice to the

gravamen of the accused and so also, abuse of process of

law. On this premise, the counsel for the petitioners

seeks for allowing these petitions by considering the

grounds as urged.

7. Learned HCGP for the respondent - State has

taken me through the allegations made in the typed

complaint filed by the complainant which runs to seven

pages. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, it reveals that

during marriage, the second respondent's parents had

provided several items as detailed in the list provided by

the complainant in the said paragraph. Subsequent to

their marriage, the second respondent had given birth to a

female-baby, and since petitioners had expected a male-

baby, they had meted out physical as well as mental

harassment to the second respondent. According to her

complaint, the petitioners herein had forced her to ask for

a share in her father's property and also forced her several

times to give them money, since the second respondent

was earning.

Hence, the learned HCGP for the State contends that

in view of the aforesaid facts, the present petitioners / in-

laws have been arraigned in the complaint filed by the

complainant. The allegations made in the complaint

requires to be tested on the part of the prosecution and so

also subjected to cross-examination in order to arrive at a

conclusion that there is no prima facie material against

the accused for commission of offence. As a result,

C.C.No.8792/2015 has been registered against the

petitioners as well and hence contends that the petitioners

/ Accused Nos. 2 and 3 require to face trial in the

aforesaid case pending on the file of the IX Addl. CMM,

Bangalore. These are all the contentions as taken by

learned HCGP for the State and seeking for dismissal of

the petitions filed by the accused.

8. It is in this context of the contentions taken by

the learned counsel for the petitioners and so also,

counter made by learned HCGP for the respondent - State

it is relevant to refer that second respondent / Shruthi

Antapnal being the wife of Mukund / first accused in

C.C.No.8792/2015 had initiated a complaint against her

husband Mukund, her father in law Sri Ramaprasad /

petitioner no.1 herein and mother-in-law Smt. Padma

Ramprasad / petitioner no.2 herein. In the said

complaint, allegations are made that her husband and her

in-laws had given physical as well as mental harassment

and demanded dowry. But if really there was any sort of

harassment extended to her, the second respondent would

have lodged the complaint in the first instance itself. Her

complaint itself reveals that she was disturbed by her

husband's behavior and only in order to give some mental

harassment and in order to wreck vengeance, she has

arraigned her father-in-law and her mother-in-law /

petitioners herein, in her complaint. But there is no any

sort of physical or mental harassment alleged to be meted

out to her by the present petitioners so as to attract the

ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. Further, though the

complainant has stated in her complaint that there was

demand of dowry by the petitioners herein, there is no

material produced to the said effect. It can be inferred

from the allegations made in the complaint and the

substance in the FIR, petitioners have been dragged into

the criminal proceedings with a view to tarnish their

image in the society. When such being the case, question

arises as to whether power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

requires to be exercised.

9. In this background, it is relevant to refer to the

scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. wherein Section 482

Cr.P.C., has to be exercised judicially, judiciously,

sparingly and cautiously, to prevent the abuse of the

process of the court and shall not be miscarriage of justice

against gravamen of accused. But there shall be

justification for interference only when the complaint do

not disclose any offence or when the complaint is frivolous

and vexatious and it shall not embark upon an enquiry

whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not.

10. In the instant petition, complaint has been filed

by Shruthi Antapnal who is none other than the daughter-

in-law of Accused Nos.2 and 3 / petitioners herein. She

has instituted the typed complaint before the

Jnanabharathi P.S., specifically stating that during her

marriage talks, the petitioners had demanded dowry. But

however, in her complaint at page 7, she has specifically

stated in her own hand-writing that the delay in filing the

complaint against him (her husband Mukund) thinking

that would change his behaviour. But since she did not

find any development in him (her husband), she had

requested the police to take necessary legal actions

against them.

Hence, it reveals that she was very much disturbed

by her husband's behaviour and only because of that

reason she was filing the complaint against her husband

as well as her in-laws. By filing the complaint arraigning

her father-in-law and mother-in-law as the accused, she

seeks to wreck vengeance against her husband Mukund.

11. It is relevant to refer to the scope of Section 482

of Cr.P.C. that while exercising such power, the High

Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry as to

whether the evidence in question is reliable or not, which

is the function of the Trial Court. However, the inherent

jurisdiction under section 482 has to be exercised

sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such

exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in

the section itself. It was referred in the case of Monica

Kumar v/s State of UP (2008) 8 SCC 781.

It is well settled that inherent power of the Court

under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when

no other remedy is available to the litigant and not various

specific remedies are provided by the Statute. Further the

power being an extra ordinary one, it has to be exercised

sparingly and further, the inherent power under section

482 of Cr.P.C shall be exercised to quash the proceedings

only when there is abuse of the process of any court.

12. It is further relevant to refer to the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of State of Karnataka v/s L. Muniswamy and Others

reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 wherein it is stated that in

exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is

entitled to quash the proceedings if it comes to conclusion

that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an

abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice

required 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 persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled

object behind a lame prosecution the very nature of

material on which the structure of the prosecution rests

and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the

proceedings in the interest of justice.

Further, it is important to note that, the essential

ingredients of the provision of Section 498A of the IPC,

1860 are, a woman must be married and she must be

subjected to cruelty either physically or mentally. Merely

being a married woman and merely filing a complaint by

the wife against her husband and in-laws, it cannot be

held that the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have

been constituted for commission of the said offence. The

cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of the IPC remains

established only by facilitating worthwhile material

evidence, though the said fact is borne out in the

complaint. When once the main ingredient has not come

forth either in the complaint or reflected in the FIR said to

have been recorded by the police, then the question of

proceeding against the accused under Section 498A IPC,

does not arise.

13. Whereas in the instant case, it is relevant to

state that the allegation made in the FIR and complaint

are so absurd and improper on the basis of which no

prudent man can reach a just conclusion that there is

sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners

arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3 and it is said that the

said proceedings initiated by her is manifestly attended

with mala fide with an ulterior motive for wreaking

vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them

due to some personal grudge.

14. In the case on hand, the material evidence

collected in support of the allegations do not disclose the

commission of offence and do not make out the case

against accused Nos.2 and 3 that they have given physical

as well as mental harassment to her and also demanded

dowry. Therefore, there is no hesitation in quashing the

FIR and the charge sheet laid by the IO against the

accused in C.C.No.8792/2015 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, r/w 34 of IPC beside Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In terms of the

aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

Crl.P.No.3140/2016 filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.2 and 3 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the

proceedings in C.C.No.8792/2015 arising out of

Cr.No.369/2013 pending before the Court of IX Addl.

CMM, Bangalore, in respect of the present petitioners /

Accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby quashed.

Whatever observations made in this order shall not

influence the mind of the Trial Court where Accused No.1

/ Mukund is facing trial in C.C.No.8792/2015. The said

case in C.C.No.8792/2015 pending before the IX Addl.

CMM, Bangalore is directed to be disposed of on merits, in

accordance with law.

Consequence upon disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed as it does not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KS