Prakash And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2944 Kant

                         1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201066/2021


BETWEEN:

1.   PRAKASH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NELLAGI
     AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE,
     R/O H.NO. 9-587 SANTOSH COLONY,
     NEAR ADARSH ITI COLLEGE,
     ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI

2.   PUTALABAI W/O HANUMANTHAPPA NELLAGI
     AGE 63 YEARS, OCC NIL,
     R/O H.NO. 9-587 SANTOSH COLONY,
     NEAR ADARSH ITI COLLEGE,
     ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI.

3.   HANUMANTHAPPA
     S/O SHIVALINGAPPA NELLAGI,
     AGE 65 YEARS, OCC NIL,
     R/O H.NO. 9-587 SANTOSH COLONY,
     NEAR ADARSH ITI COLLEGE,
     ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI.

4.   SONUBAI W/O BASAVARAJ PATIL,
     AGE 48 YEARS,
     OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
     R/O G K ROAD, NEAR GOVERNMENT,
     GENERAL HOSPITAL, SEDAM.
                          2



5.    BABURAO S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NELLAGI,
      AGE 46 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
      R/O H.NO. 9-587, SANTOSH COLONY,
      NEAR ADARSH ITI COLLEGE,
      ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI.

6.    BHAVYA W/O BABURAO NELLAGI,
      AGE 36 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O H.NO. 9-587, SANTOSH COLONY,
      NEAR ADARSH ITI COLLEGE,
      ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI.

7.    SHARANABASAVA NELLAGI
      S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NELLAGI,
      AGE 36 YEARS, OCC GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
      R/O 'C' BLOCK, 30 POLICE COLONY,
      OPPOSITE SP OFFICE, RAICHUR.

8.    RAJU S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NELLAGI,
      AGE 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
      R/O H.NO. 9-587 SANTOSH COLONY,
      NEAR ADARSH ITI COLLEGE,
      ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI.

9.    SWATI W/O RAJU NELLAGI,
      AGE 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O PLOT NO.7, BASAVA NILAY,
      OPPOSITE BASAVANNA TEMPLE,
      BHARATH COLONY, NEHRU COLONY,
      KALABURAGI.

10.   SAVITA W/O LINGANGOUDA B BIRADAR,
      AGE 39 YEARS, OCC GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
      R/O H NO. 10-234/49, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT,
      S B TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                          3



11.   SHIVANAND S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NELLAGI
      AGE 37 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
      R/O PLOT NO. 114, J R COLONY,
      ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI.

12.   NIVEDITHA @ SHILPA
      W/O SHIVANAND NELLAGI,
      AGE 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O PLOT NO. 114, J R COLONY,
      ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                                       ....PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.R S KADGANCHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
      KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION
      NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL SPP
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      KALABURAGI BENCH 585103.

2.    SHILPA W/O PRAKASH NELLAGI
      R/O JAI SHANKAR COLONY,
      BASAVAKALYAN.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(SRI.GURURAJ V.HASLIKAR, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI AMIT SAHU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR & COMPLAINT IN CRIME
NO.171/2021 REGISTERED BY THE KALABURAGI CITY
WOMEN     POLICE   STATION    FOR  THE   OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506
R/W 34 OF IPC & UNDER SECTION 3, 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KALABURAGI.
                                 4




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

                          ORDER

Heard Sri R.S.Kadaganchi, learned counsel for the

petitioners and leaned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent

No.2/complainant.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C with the following prayer :-

"To allow this petition and quash the FIR & complaint in Crime No.171/2021 registered by the Kalaburagi city women police station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC & under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaburagi."

3. The brief facts of the care are as follows :-

Shilpa W/o Prakash Nelogi respondent No.2 herein

filed a complaint with Women Police Station, Kalaburagi on

20.07.2021. In the complaint, it is contended that on

01.12.2014 she married the first petitioner-Prakash Nelogi.

After the marriage, she joined matrimonial home and led a

happy married life for a period of three months. During the

time of marriage, 11 tolas of gold and other household

articles were given as dowry. Earlier to marriage, a sum of

`1,00,000/- was spent for the medical treatment of

Lingangouda who is the brother-in-law of her husband.

Despite the same, the family members of her husband

started harassing her in order to get additional dowry.

They also forcefully aborted her child. She was repeatedly

sent home with a demand for additional dowry and

thereafter they demanded `15,00,000/- for getting a

Government job for her husband.

4. When the matter stood thus, on 01.01.2017

she was sent out from the matrimonial home with a life

threat. Thereafter, there was a panchayat convened.

However, none of those attempts were fruitful. When the

matter stood thus, on 18.07.2021, there was a call made

to her and she went to matrimonial home around 8.45

p.m. at that juncture her husband, her father-in-law and

brother-in-law Shivanand and his wife Niveditha and her

sister-in-law Savita and her daughter Vibha were present.

At that juncture, again they demanded five tolas of gold

and `5,00,000/- and he would withdraw the divorce

petition. She requested them that her father does not have

so much of gold and cash. At that juncture, around 12.00

in the night all of them joined together and assaulted her

and pushed her out of the house. Based on the said

complaint, police registered the case on 20.07.2021 and

are investigating the matter.

5. In the petition, following grounds have been

raised :-

x It is submitted that, looking into the contents of the FIR, no offence can be attributed to the petitioners.

x It is submitted even as per the complainant she had left the matrimonial house in the year 2017 itself, under such circumstance the allegation that she was harassed by the petitioner is far from truth and a false complaint has been registered with an ulterior motive to harass her husband and his family members.

x It is submitted that petitioner no.1 has filed a divorce petition in the year 2018 and the complainant has filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act in the year 2018 itself and petitioner has no.1 been allowances paying the to complainant as ordered by the court, this aspect of the matter clearly demonstrates there is no harassment meted out against the complainant.

x It is submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 18-07-2021 and the complaint is lodged on 20-07- 2021 at about 5.30 p.m, this aspect of the matter clearly demonstrates that a false complaint has been registered against all the family members of the husband only with an ill intention to harass them, hence the case deserves to be quashed.

x It is submitted that complainant has attributed omnibus allegations against the petitioners only with an intention to harass the petitioners.

x It is submitted that petitioner no.1 has filed a divorce petition and the complainant has filed the present complaint only to pressurize petitioner no.1 not to pursue the divorce petition and to withdraw the divorce petition.

6. Reiterating the above grounds, Sri R.S.Kadaganci

learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in a

matter of this nature, it is not uncommon that the relatives

of the husband are unnecessarily roped them in order to

harass them. He further contended that except vague

allegations there is no specific allegation made against

petitioner Nos.4 to 12. Moreover, petitioner Nos.4 to 12

are not residing with the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, that they

are residing separately in their respective houses. Only

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are residing in one and the same

address which is the matrimonial home of the complainant

and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposes the petition by contending that matter is

being investigated and charge sheet would be filed shortly

and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

8. Sri Amit Sahu, representing for respondent

No.2/complainant (wife) contended that in fact the wife

has filed a miscellaneous first appeal in respect of the

divorce decree obtained in M.C.No.143/2018 and the same

is pending before this Court and when the divorce petition

was pending, the petitioners herein called the second

respondent to their house and again demanded five tolas

of gold and cash of `5,00,000/- which shows that they are

only interested in somehow extracting dowry amount from

the second respondent and this court at this stage cannot

exercise the special power vested in it under Section 482

of Cr.P.C in quashing the first information report itself

against the petitioners and the police are investigating the

matter and after thorough investigation the police would

file necessary charge-sheet before the court and at that

juncture the petitioners may approach this court and

sought for dismissal of the petition.

9. In reply, Sri R.S.Kadaganchi submitted that

the court need not wait till the charge-sheet is filed and if

there is no prima facie allegations in the complaint itself,

investigating the matter against the petitioners itself would

amount to abuse of process of law and sought for allowing

the petition.

10. In support of his case, he relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of

Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162.

11. This court in the light of the rival contentions

perused the materials on record. Admittedly, first

petitioner was married to the second respondent in the

year 2014. The matrimonial life was not cordial and there

were serious differences. According to the second

respondent, the petitioners herein forcefully aborted the

fetus. No complaint is filed at that juncture by the second

respondent herein. Complaint averments itself reveal that

first time she was sent out of the house on 01.01.2017.

Thereafter, a divorce petition is also filed before the

jurisdictional court in MC No.143/2018. It is on record that

the said divorce petition is allowed and second respondent

has now challenged the grant of decree of divorce before

this court in miscellaneous first appeal.

12. If the second respondent has been thrown out

of the house demanding the dowry on 01.01.2017, it

would be highly unimaginable that the respondent No.2

would be called to the house of the petitioners on

18.07.2021. The entire allegation in respect of the incident

that said to have occurred on 18.07.2021 is in order to file

a case on 20.07.2021. This court at this stage cannot hold

a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits, truth or

otherwise of the incident that said to have been taken

place on 18.07.2021. Even according to the complaint,

only few of the petitioners were present on 18.07.2021.

Divorce came to be granted on 30.07.2021. When the

divorce petition was in the fag end that too the divorce

petition being filed by the husband, the incident of

18.07.2021 is doubtful.

13. Further, as could be seen from the addresses

mentioned in the first information report, all the petitioners

are resident of Santhosh Colony, Kalaburagi City,

Kalaburagi whereas the material on record would reveal

that the petitioner Nos.4 to 12 are residing separately and

some of them are not even resident of Kalaburagi Town

and Kalaburagi District. Therefore, there is sufficient force

in the argument put-forth on behalf of the petitioners that

in order to coerce the petitioners to agree for illegal

attempts made by the second respondent, a criminal case

came to be filed on some vague allegations. However,

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 being the husband and father-in-law

and mother-in-law of the second respondent, shared the

common roof along with the second respondent when

second respondent lived in the matrimonial home.

Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Kahkashan Kausar referred to supra, this

court is of the considered opinion that the first information

report filed against petitioner Nos.4 to 12 needs to be

discontinued and complaint against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to

be continued. It is not uncommon that the relatives of the

husband who are no way connected with the incident

would also be roped them in a matter of this nature with a

view to harass the relatives of the husband. Criminal

prosecution launched against such persons would definitely

result in abuse of process of law. Such complaints needs to

be curbed in order to maintain peace and tranquility and

for raising consequences that would occur in their

respective families as well. Therefore, a case is made out

to allow the petition in part. Hence, the following :

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed in part.

First information report filed against petitioner Nos.4

to 12 who are accused Nos.4 to 12 in Crime No.171/2021

registered by the Kalaburagi Women Police Station is

hereby quashed.

The complaint against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 who are

accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.171/2021 be investigated

by the first respondent police and file appropriate report in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn