Sandeep S/O Sidlingappa Morabad vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2666 Kant

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101523/2021

BETWEEN:

SANDEEP S/O SIDLINGAPPA MORABAD
AGE. 27 YEARS,
OCC. PVT. SERVICE AT BENGALURU
R/O. BEHIND NEW BUS STAND,
JAYANAGAR, SHIGGAON-581205
TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI

                                                 ...PETITIONER.

(BY SHRI A P MURARI, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
     SHIGGAON
     REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     DHARWAD BENCH-580011

2.   NIVEDITA W/O. SANDEEP MORABAD
     AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
     R/O. JAYANAGAR, SHIGGAON-581205
     TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI

                                              ...RESPONDENTS.

(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SMT.NIRMALA B.G., ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
                                2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCED5URE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
AT ANNEXURES-A, B AND C IN SHIGGAON P.S. CRIME NO.101/2020
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SHIGGAON, IN C.C.NO.293/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 323 AND 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961,
INSOFAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED, ETC.,.

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


                            ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.293/2021, pending on the file of Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 498A of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Shri A.P.Murari, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ramesh Chigari, the

learned HCGP, for respondent no.1 State and Smt.Nirmala B.G.,

the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are that

the accused no.1 and the complainant wife get married on

23.5.2019. When the relationship between the two turned sore,

it transpires that the petitioner files a divorce petition seeking

annulment of marriage in M.C.No.24/2020. After registration of

the said case for annulment of marriage, the wife 2nd

respondent registers a complaint on 9.10.2020 for the offences

as aforesaid against the husband and other members of the

family. The other members of the family had knocked the doors

of this Court in Crl.P.No.101410/2020 which came to be

disposed off by order dated 23.7.2021 whereby the proceedings

against all other members of the family stood obliterated.

4. After the judgment in Crl.P.No.101410/2020, the

husband has preferred this petition seeking quashing of the

proceedings against him as is quashed in

Crl.P.No.101410/2020. The aforesaid judgment was rendered

following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta

Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and other

judgments wherein the Apex Court had delineated the issue of

dragging other members of the family into the web of criminal

proceedings. The present petition is by the husband urging the

very same ground that were urged in the petition that was filed

by other members of the family.

5. A perusal at the complaint registered against the

petitioners and others would clearly indicate overtacts by the

accused husband, the present petitioner. It is not a solitary

instance of torture that is narrated but several instances after

marriage. In the light of the complaint making out prima facie

offences that would become punishable, as aforesaid, further

proceedings cannot be interjected or interfered with insofar as

the petitioner is concerned. Finding no ground to interfere, the

criminal petition stands dismissed.

6. It is made clear that the observations made in the

course of this order would not influence or bind the Criminal

Court, before whom the proceedings are pending against the

petitioner.

SD JUDGE Mrk/-