Karnataka High Court
Surekha H vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4444 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Surekha H W/o Manjappa
Aged about 36 years
Residing at Cada A/10
Hospet Road Cada Colony
Holemudlapur Munirbad
Koppal, Karnataka-583233.
2. Smt. Nethravathi W/o Hanumanthappa
Aged about 47 years
Resident of No.1159,
Nijalingappa Badavane
A Block, Davanagere Town
Davanagere - 577 001.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. M S Venugopal, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by Women Police Station
Chitradurga Town
Chitradurga-550501.
2. Smt. Soujanya W/o Praful Kumar
Aged about 27 years
Residing at Yangammana Katte
2nd Cross, Municipal Layout
Sahyadri Badavane
Chitradurga-577 501.
... Respondents
(By Sri K S Abhijith, HCGP for R1
Sri B Pramod, Adv. for R2)
-----
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1
Police against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.1629/2019 (
Cr.No.28/2019) on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Chitradurga for the offences P/U/S 323, 504, 506,
354, 448, 498A, 114, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act by
allowing this Crl.Ps.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
court made the following through video conference :
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the proceedings
initiated against these two petitioners who have been
arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 3 in C.C.No.1629/2019.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that
respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint on 16.04.2019
making allegation against these two petitioners and also
against other persons who have been arrayed as accused
that they all subjected her to both physical and mental
cruelty. Apart from that the allegation was also made that
they demanded dowry and also insisted to get additional
dowry from her parents and also assaulted her. Based on a
complaint, a case came to be registered and investigation
also conducted and charge sheet filed for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 448,
498(A), 114 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that against these petitioners there is no specific
allegation and also no overt acts alleged against these
petitioners. They have been falsely implicated in the
complaint and the same does not attract the offences
invoked against them. Learned counsel also submits that
MC petition has also been filed under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and hence,
praying this Court to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that specific allegation is made in the complaint
regarding demand and acceptance of dowry prior to
marriage and subsequent to marriage. Though learned
counsel would contend that there is no specific allegation
against these two petitioners, the specific allegation is
against mother-in-law who is petitioner No.2. It is also
contended that in respect of petitioner No.1 also specific
allegation is made that she also insisted respondent No.2
to go and get money from her parents. Accused No.1 also
insisted her to hear the words of his sister and also his
parents to get money. The specific allegation is that these
two petitioners are also not only demanded money and also
insisted to get additional dowry from her parents. When
the specific allegation made in the complaint, the police
have also investigated the matter and recorded the
statement of witnesses and eyewitnesses. The statement is
available before the Court at page No.34 discloses with
regard to incident. When the material available before the
Court, exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
cannot be invoked and the same has to be ascertained only
after full fledged trial. The very contention that no specific
allegation made against these two petitioners cannot be
accepted. The Court has to exercise power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., sparingly when it leads abuse of process
and miscarriage of justice and not otherwise. The
investigation already completed and charge sheet also filed.
The truthfulness of the statements of the witnesses cannot
be ascertained exercising the judgment/jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following order
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nms
