Pushpa Devi W/O. Vijaysingh ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1609 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101399/2021


BETWEEN

1.   PUSHPA DEVI W/O. VIJAYSINGH BOTHRA,
     AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER,
     R/O. 22/1, ALIPORE ROAD,
     605 VANDANA APARTMENTS
     KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700027.

2.   GAUTAM S/O.VIJAYSINGH BOTHRA,
     AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
     R/O.A-102, THE BELAIRE,
     GOLF COURSE ROAD, DLF PHASE 5,
     GURGAON, SECTOR 54,
     GURGAON, HARYANA-122003.

3.   PUJA W/O. GAUTAM BOTHRA,
     AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER,
     R/O.A-102, THE BELAIRE, GOLF COURSE ROAD,
     DLF PHASE 5, GURGAON, SECTOR 54,
     GURGAON, HARYANA-122003.
                                      ...PETITIONERS

     (BY SRI AAYUSH G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
                           2




AND :

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY KOPPAL POLICE,
     NOW REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     DHARWAD.

2.   SMT. SWETA W/O. ANAND BOTHRA
     AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER,
     R/O. PLOT NO.205, KAKTHIYA RESIDENCY,
     KAPPAGALROAD, BALLARI-583103.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL AND SRI S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.38/2021
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 504 AND 506
R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND THE COMPLAINT IS FILED
ON 09.03.2021 BEFORE THE WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, PENDING BEFORE THE 4TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, BELLARI IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED AND GRANT ANY OTHER
RELIEF.
                              3




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

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in Crime No.38/2021 registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504

and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and for the offences

punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri Ayush G.Bhat, learned counsel appearing

for petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chigari learned HCGP

appearing for respondent No.1-State, Sri K.L.Patil, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-complainant.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition

as borne out from the pleadings as follows :

The 2nd respondent-complainant and accused No.1,

(who is not before the Court) get married on 15.02.2002.

Later the couple appear to have moved to United States of

America and then shifted to Canada. The relationship

between the 1st accused-husband and the 2nd respondent-

complainant has apparently turned sore, which resulted in

a complaint being registered by the wife-2nd respondent on

09.03.2021. The complaint reads as follows :

"ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, §¼Áîj, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.03.2021 EAzÀ :

²æêÀÄw ±ÉéÃvÁ ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ UÀAqÀ D£ÀAzÀ ¨sÉÆvÁæ, 41 ªÀµð À , ªÀiÁªÁðr d£ÁAUÀ, UÀÈ»tÂ, ¸Á: ¥Áèmï £ÀA: 205, PÁPÀwÃAiÀÄ gɹqɤì, PÀ¥ÀàU¯ À ï gÀ¸ÉÛ, §¼Áîj. £ÀA: 9145862760

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß UÀAqÀ D£ÀAzÀ ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªgÀ À «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ.

              £Á£ÀÄ         F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ      «¼Á¸Àz°
                                                   À è          ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ,       £ÀªÀÄä
     vÀAzÉ        ²æÃ¥sv
                       À ïªÀÄ¯ï    §ZÁªÀvï             ºÁUÀÄ     vÁ¬Ä        ¸ÀAvÉÆõï
     §ZÁªÀvï           gÀªj
                          À UÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ¢AzÀ              E§âgÀÄ      ºÉtÄÚ       ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ
     ºÁUÀÆ M§â UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ                  EzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ           PÉÆ£ÉAiÀĪÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ
     £À£U

À É FUÉÎ 2001£Éà ¸Á°£À°è £ÀªÀÄä zÀÆgÀzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üPg À ÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ £Àgï¥Àvï ZÉÆÃgÁjAiÀiÁ gÀªg À À PÀq¬ É ÄAzÀ PÀ®ÌvÁÛzÀ ªÁ¹ «dAiÀiï ¹AUï ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ gÀªg À À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ D£ÀAzÀ ¨ÉÆÃvÁæ gÀªg À À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ §A¢zÀÄÝ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À PÀqA É iÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÆÃr M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ

ªÀgz À QÀ ëuA É iÀiÁV 15 ®PÀë ºÀt ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ 25 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀz,À MAzÀÄ qÉʪÀÄAqï jAUï ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.10. ®PÀë ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀĪÀÅ UÀȺÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉýzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªA

vÉƯÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ ZÉÊ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Áæ¸À¯Émï, MAzÉÆAzÀÄ 10 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzA À vÉ 10 §AUÁgÀzÀ PÁ¬Ä£ïUÀ¼ÀÄ, MAzÀÄ qÉʪÉÄAqï jAUï PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÄ 5 ®Pïë ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀĪÀ UÀȺÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ CªÀgÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¤²ÑvÁxÀð ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ®ÌvÁÛz¯ À Éèà CzÀÆÝjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPg À ¯ É Áè C¯Éèà EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä M¦àPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 26-

08-2001 gÀAzÀÄ ¤²ÑvÁxÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Ëvï PÀ®PÀvÁÛzÀ C°è¥ÀÄgÀz° À ègÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ : 15-02-2002 gÀAzÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ 10 ¢£À ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV £ÁªÉ®g è ÀÆ PÀ®PÀvÁÛUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ªÀg¤ À UÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ §AUÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ qÉʪÀÄAqï jAUï £ÉÃzÀÝ£ÀÄß ªÀg£ À À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà £ÀªÀÄä zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà£ÁzÀ ¥ÁgÀ¸ïªÀįïfà §ZÁªÀvï ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁªÀ DzÀ C¤¯ïfà £ÁmÉà gÀªg À À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ, ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EAlgÉßõÀ£¯ À ï PÀè¨ï PÀ®PÀvÁÛz° À è CzÀÆÝjAiÀiÁV £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÃÉ

ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛg.É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ¯Éèà ªÀg£ À À PÀqA É iÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ §mÉÖU¼ À ÀÄ PÉÆr¹¯Áè, §AUÁgÀzÀ D¨sg À t À UÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÆr¹¯Áè CzÀÄ ¸ÀjE¯Áè EzÀÄ ¸ÀjE¯Áè JAzÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á QjQj ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ.

          ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ              £ÀAvÀgÀ           £Á£ÀÄ           £À£Àß        UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ             £ÀªÀÄä        ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è           £À£Àß         UÀAqÀ          ºÁUÀÆ     CvÉÛ
¥ÀĵÁëzÃÉ «          ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ,        ªÀiÁªÀ            «dAiÀiï¹AUï              ¨ÉÆÃvÁæ , ¨ÁªÀ
UËvÀªÀiï        ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ            DvÀ£À          ºÉAqÀw ¥ÀÆeÁ ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ                       ºÁUÀÆ
ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À            j¶        ¨sÉÆÃvÀæ           gÀªg
                                                     À ÀÄ         EzÀÄÝ           CªÀgÀ        ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
ºÉÆÃzÀ         ¢£À¢AzÀ¯ÃÉ             EªÀg®
                                          É ègÀÆ                     £À£U
                                                                        À É      ¤ªÀÄä          vÀAzÉ
vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ             £ÀªÀÄUÉ      PÉýzÀµÀÄë             ªÀgz
                                                                 À QÀ ëuÉ         ºÀt        PÉÆnÖ¯Áè
¤Ã£ÀÄ       £ÀªÀÄä      ¸ÉÖÃl¸ï           vÀPÀÌ      ºÀÄqÀÄV          C¯Áè        ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ      ¸ÀºÁ
£ÀªÀÄä         ¸ÉÖÃl¸ÀUÉ                vÀPÀÌAvÉ             ªÀiÁr¯Áè             ¤ªÀÄä         vÀAzÉ
vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀjAzÀ                  ºÉaÑ£À                   ªÀgz
                                                            À QÀ ëuA
                                                                   É iÀiÁV              gÀÆ.10 ®PÀë
vÉUz
   É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ              ¨Á            JAzÀÄ              ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ            J®è ªÀÄ£ÉP®
                                                                                            É ¸À
£À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ            ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ                £À£U
                                                       À É        ªÀÄ£ÉP®
                                                                        É ¸Àzª
                                                                             À ¼
                                                                               À A
                                                                                 À vÉ næÃmï
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ             £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ               ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁªÀ£À ºÉAqÀw EªÀgÀÄ
£À£U
   À É CqÀÄUÉ             ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV           ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è                     ¨ÉÃPÁgï        ®qïQ
JAzÀÄ          ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ          CqÀÄUÉ              ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ             £ÀªÀÄä        CvÉÛ
PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ         CqÀÄUÉ           ¥ÁvÉU
                                          æ ½
                                            À AzÀ                 £À£Àß          ªÉÄÃ¯É        J¸ÉzÀÄ
ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ            F «µÀAiÀÄ                £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß          UÀAqÀ¤UÉ          ºÉýzÀgÃÉ
£À£Àß     UÀAqÀ       £ÀªÀÄä        ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ           ºÉÃUÉ      ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉÆà          ºÁUÉÃ
PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ            ªÀÄ£ÉP®
                             É ¸Àzª
                                  À ¼
                                    À A
                                      À vÉ ©¢Ýg¨
                                               À ÃÉ PÀÄ                           JAzÀÄ         £À£U
                                                                                                   À É





¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ      C®èzÃÉ            £À£Àß         UÀAqÀ          ªÉÄAl°          mɸ
                                                                                       æ ï¤AzÀ
EgÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ         F §UÉÎ             aQvÉì           ¥ÀqA
                                                         É iÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ                    ¸Àt¥
                                                                                            Ú ÀÄlÖ
«µÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ         £À£Àß         ªÉÄÃ¯É       PÀÆUÁqÀÄvÁÛ             £À£U
                                                                           À É       ºÉÆqÀ§qÉ
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
         2005£Éà ¸Á°£À°è £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ                                     aPÁUÉÆãÀ°è
PÉ®¸À        ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä              ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ            £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ                r¥ÉAqÉAmï
«Ã¸ÁzÉÆA¢UÉ             aPÁUÉÆÃUÉ               ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ            C°èUÉ        £ÀªÀÄä      CvÉÛ
¸ÀºÁ          §A¢zÀÄÝ                  2007           £Éà         ¸Á°£À°è                   £Á£ÀÄ
UÀ©ð
   ü tÂAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ          £À£Àß     UÀAqÀ          ºÁUÀÆ        CvÉÛ     ¤£ÀߣÀÄß         ¸ÁPÀ®Ä

£ÀªÀÄUÉ PÀµÀëªÁVzÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ ºÉvÀÛgÃÉ ¤«Ääçâg£ À ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV Hl ¸ÀºÁ PÉÆqÀzÃÉ vÀÄA¨Á vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ £À£U À É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV aQvÉì ¸ÀºÁ PÉÆr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. £À£U À É ªÀQðAUï «Ã¸Á E®èzÀ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ aPÁUÉÆãÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ lÆåµÀ£ï ºÉýPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, wAr-w¤¸ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr ºÀt UÀ½¹zÀgÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ CvÉÛ £À£U À É aQvÉì ¸ÀºÁ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV PÉÆr¸ÀzÃÉ EzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14-07-2007 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ d£Àß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ £À£U À É ¹-¸ÉPÀë£ï D¥ÀgÃÉ µÀ£ï¤AzÀ ºÉjUÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ EzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÁ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ CvÉÛ ¤£Àß ºÉjUÉUÁV vÀÄA¨Á ºÀt RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr¢Ýë zÀjzÀª æ ¼ À ÀÄ JAzÀÄ D¸Ààv¬ Éæ ÄAzÀ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£U À É ªÀÄ£É N¼ÀUÉ ¸ÀºÀ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉƼÀîzÃÉ EzÀÄÝ CPÀÌ¥PÀ ÀÌzª À g À ÀÄ 2 ¢£À £À£U À É D±ÀA æ iÀÄ

¤Ãr §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉƼÀUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£U À ÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV DgÉÊPÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÃÉ EzÀÄÝ F «µÀAiÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£U À É ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ EArAiÀiÁUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï §gÀ®Ä ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ 2009 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è £Á£ÀÄ EArAiÀiÁUÉ §AzÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ eÁ¨ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀÆPÀÆ®ªÁUÀÄvÀÛzA É zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ MgÁPɯï PÉÆøÀð ªÀiÁr ¥ÀÄ£ÀB aPÁUÉÆÃUÉ ºÉÆÃV F §UÉÎ PÉ®¸À ºÀÄqÀÄPÁqÀÄvÀÛzÁÝUÀ 2010 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ «dAiÀÄ ¹AUï ¨ÉÆÃvÁæ gÀ¸ÉÛ C¥ÀWÁvÀz° À è wÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ aPÁUÉÆäAzÀ ªÁ¥À¸ï §A¢zÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, CvÉÛ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁªÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁªÀ£À ºÉAqÀw £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUz É ÀÄ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊ¢gÀÄvÁÛg.É EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2011 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À j² ¨ÉÆÃvÁæ ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ¤¢ü ¨ÉÆÃvÁæ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ ºÉ°PÁ¥ÀÖgÀ ¥Àª æ ÀiÁzÀz° À è wÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÁ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤£Àß PÁ®ÄÎt ¸ÀjE¯Áè ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ±À¤ EzÁÝUÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

         EzÁzÀ            £ÀAvÀgÀ          £À£Àß       UÀAqÀ          ªÀÄÄA¨ÉÊ£À           PÉ®ªÀÅ
PÀA¥É¤UÀ¼°
         À è        ºÁUÀÄ           ¥ÀÄ£ÉU¼
                                          À °
                                            À è £À        PÉ®ªÀÅ PÀA¥É¤UÀ¼°
                                                                          À è               PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁqÀÄwzÀÄÝ      £À£Àß      UÀAqÀ         J°èAiÀÄÆ           ¸ÀºÁ        ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV         PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁqÀzÃÉ EzÀÄÝzj
                À AzÀ                 PÀA¥É¤AiÀĪÀgÀÄ            CªÀg£
                                                                     À ÀÄß         PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ





vÉUz
   É ÀĺÁPÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ          £Á£ÀÄ        2011 £Éà         ¸Á°¤AzÀ             2013 gÀªg
                                                                                      À U
                                                                                        É É
§¼ÁîjAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä              vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà EgÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ
DUÁUÀ        £À£ÀߣÀÄß      ºÁUÀÆ             ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß          £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä         §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ
§AzÁUÀ¯¯
       É Áè          ¤Ã£ÀÄ          zÀjzÀª
                                         æ ¼
                                           À ÀÄ         ¤Ã£ÀÄ       §AzÀÄ        £ÀªÄÀ ä     ªÀÄ£É
ºÁ¼ÁVzÉ £À£U
           À É               AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà             GzÉÆåÃUÀ         ¹UÀÄwÛ¯Áè            JAzÀÄ
£À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ               dUÀ¼À           ªÀiÁr             £À£U
                                                              À É      ºÉÆqÀ§qÉ             ªÀiÁr
ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.
           £ÀAvÀgÀ       2014£Éà        ¸Á°£À°è            £À£Àß     UÀAqÀ       AiÀÄÄJ¸ïJzÀ
£ÀÆåeɹðAiÀÄ°è             PÉ®¸À         ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä          ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ         £Á£ÀÄ           ¸ÀºÁ
C°èUÉ       ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ        C°è        6 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ           £ÀAvÀgÀ      £À£Àß      UÀAqÀ££
                                                                                          À ÀÄß
PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ        vÉUz
                    É ÀÄ      ºÁQzÀÄÝ                £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ       PÀ®PÀvÁÛPÉÌ           ªÁ¥À¸ï
§A¢zÀÄÝ          CA¢¤AzÀ                 £À£Àß         UÀAqÀ        AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà            PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ
ºÉÆÃUÀzÃÉ        EzÀÄÝ        £À£Àß      UÀAqÀ         ºÁUÀÄ        CªÀgÀ        ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ
¤£ÀߣÀÄß       ºÁUÀÆ              ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß         AiÀiÁgÀÄ       ¸ÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ            ºÉa£
                                                                                               Ñ À
ªÀgz
   À QÀ ëuA
          É iÀiÁV ¤ªÀÄä             vÀªg
                                       À ÀÄ       ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÀt              vÉUz
                                                                                 É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
¨Á JAzÀÄ ¥Àw
           æ â£Á £À£U

À É ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.5 ®PÀëU¼ À ª À g À U É É £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÀt PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛg.É ªÉÄà 2017 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÉ£ÁqÁ zÉñÀz° À è mÉÆgÀAmÁzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ¹QÌzÃÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀºÁ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £À£U À É D ¸Àܼz À À ªÁvÁªÀgt À ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ DUÀzÃÉ DgÉÆÃUÀå vÀÄA¨Á ºÉZÀÄ¥ Ñ ÃÉ gÁVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¤£ÀUÉ aQvÉì PÉÆr¸À®Ä

£À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ºÀt E¯Áè ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¤£Àß ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁPÀ®Ä £À£U À É DUÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè JAzÀÄ £À£U À É ¥Àw æ ¢£À £À£U À É ºÉÆqɧqÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ C°èAzÀ ªÁ¥À¸ï §gÀ®Ä ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ 2018 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï wAUÀ¼° À è £Á£ÀÄ EArAiÀiÁUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï §AzÀÄ CA¢¤AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ E¯Éèà £ÀªÀÄä vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §gÀ¨ÃÉ PÁzÀgÃÉ ¤ªÀÄä vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ gÀÆ.10 ®PÀë ºÀt vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ EwÛÃaÑUÉ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÃÉ DUÁUÀ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀjzÀª æ ¼ À ÀÄ ¤¤ßAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁ¼ÁVzÉÝÃ£É ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£U À É ¨ÉÃqÀ £À£U À É ªÀÄUÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ¤ÃªÁzÀgÀÆ §Ä¢ÝºÃÉ ½ JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ, ¨ÁªÀ ºÁUÀÄ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀºÁ ¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀjzÀª æ À¼ÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃqÀ J¯Áèzg À ÀÆ ¸Á¬Ä £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉa£ Ñ À ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊ¢gÀÄvÁÛg.É PÁgÀt £À£U À É ºÉa£ Ñ À ªÀgÀzQÀ ëuA É iÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÉÆqɧqÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ D£ÀAzÀ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ 47 ªÀµð À ¸Á: PÉ£q À Á zÉñÀ CvÉÛ 2) ¥ÀĵÁëzÃÉ « 67 ªÀµð À ¨ÁªÀ 3)

UËvÀªÀiï ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ, 49 ªÀµð À DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw 4) ¥ÀÆeÁ ¨sÉÆÃvÁæ 46 ªÀµð À ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ºÁ° ªÁ¸À: UÀÄqÀÄUÁA, zɺ° À . EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀª æ ÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ."

4. The allegation in the complaint (supra) is primarily

and entirely against the husband. A few statements with

regard to allegations against the mother-in-law are made

when the mother-in-law had visited the couple in U.S.A.

about 10 years prior to the registration of the complaint.

Except such bald statements with regard to other members

of the family, there is no other statement made that would

touch upon the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Entire allegation is against the

husband, as the husband and wife after marriage lived

together for close to 17 years. If problems had occurred

between the husband and wife when they were away from

the country on account of their avocation, other members

of the family cannot be dragged into such proceedings. The

1st petitioner is the mother-in-law, the 2nd petitioner is the

brother-in-law and the 3rd petitioner is the wife of the

brother-in-law. Who admittedly never stayed with the

complainant or even with the couple. Dragging the

petitioners into these criminal proceedings would without

doubt result in miscarriage of justice and be on abuse of

the process of the law.

5. It is apposite to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2012) 10

SCC 741, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

"25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-

accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie

not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.

26. In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings against them, inter alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on the solitary ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial court.

27. The High Court in our considered opinion appears to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left

to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant's husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of respondent No.2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently

the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.

6. The aforesaid judgment is again followed by the

Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Chopra vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2019) 15

SCC 357, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

"18. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on various judgments of this Court in support of his submissions. In K. Subba Rao and Others Vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, this Court laid down following in paragraph Nos.5 and 6:-

"5. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet discloses the fact that the appellants are not the immediate family members of the third respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third respondent who was harassing the second respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court.

6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551."

Xxxx xxxx xxx

Xxxx xxxx xxx

24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P.

Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that

the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra.

25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. "they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore" and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother's sister and husband of mother's sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants. Further, prior to filing of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. there was no complaint at any point of time by the girl or her father making allegation of demand of any dowry by any one of the applicants. When both Nayan Chopra and Vanshika started living separately since November, 2013, had there been any dowry demand or harassment the girl would have given complaint to Police or any other authority. Further, in the divorce proceedings at Michigan, U.S.A., parties have agreed for dividing their properties including gifts given at marriage but no complaint was made in those proceedings regarding harassment by her husband or his family members."

7. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at

hand and the complainant not even pointing out any

incident that would touch upon for the offences punishable

under sections 498A and 323 of IPC or even Sections 504

and 506 of IPC as is alleged, I find that this is a fit case

where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. has to be invoked and proceedings against the

petitioners should be obliterated, failing which, proceedings

degenerated into harassment against the petitioners.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following :

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime

No.38/2021 of Ballari Women Police Station

on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge

(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Ballari stands

and 4.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made

in the course of this order concerns only

accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The trial Court

would not be bound or influenced by the

observations made in the course of this

order, which is made concerning accused

Nos.2, 3 and 4 only.

SD/-

JUDGE CKK