Karnataka High Court

Mudakappa S/O Sanna Erappa vs The Circle Police Inspector on 27 January, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100051/2021

BETWEEN:

1.   MUDAKAPPA S/O SANNA ERAPPA
     AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/
     GUEST TEACHER,
     R/O. RANGAPUR-584124,
     TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

2.   SANNA ERAPPA @ EARPPA S/O MUDUKAPPA
     AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. RANGAPUR-584124,
     TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

3.   LAKSHAMAMMA @ LACHUMAMMA
     W/O. SANNA ERAPPA
     AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. RANGAPUR-584124,
     TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

4.   HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHA
     S/O. SANNA ERAPPA @ ERAPPA
     AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. RANGAPUR-584124,
     TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

5.   GOVINDAPPA S/O SANNA ERAPPA @ ERAPPA
     AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. MASKI-584124,
     TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

6.   SMT. SHAKUNTHALA
     W/O HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHA
                                  2




       AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
       R/O. RANGAPUR-584124,
       TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

7.     SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA
       AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
       R/O. RANGAPUR-584124,
       TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

8.     SMT. BASAMMA W/O RAMESH
       AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
       R/O. KAKKERI, TQ. HUNASI,
       NOW AT RANGAPUR-584124,
       TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

9.     SMT. GANGAMMA @ EARAMMA
       W/O. SOMANAGOWDA
       AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
       R/O. DYAMRODALABANDA,
       NOW AT RANGAPUR-584124,
       TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR.

                                                  ...PETITIONERS.

(BY SHRI K S PATIL, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
       KARATAGI P.A., GANGAVATHI (RURAL) CIRCLE
       GANGAVATHI-583227, DIST. KOPPAL,
       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       AG OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

2.     SMT. BASAMMA
       W/O. MUDAKAPPA NAYAKA
       AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
       R/O. RANGAPUR,
       TQ. MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR,
                                 3




     NOW AT GUDURU-583282,
     TQ. KARATAGI, DIST. RAICHUR.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS.

(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SHRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 13.11.2020, IN C.C.NO.2094/2020, PASSED BY ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI (AS PER ANNEXURE-A) AND
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET (ANNEXURE-F) IN KARATAGI
P.S. CRIME NO.70/2020, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 504, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, AND SECTION 3, 4,
6 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GANGAVATHI, ETC.,.

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


                             ORDER

The petitioners/accused in C.C.No.2094/2020 on the file

of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, are before this

Court, calling in question the entire proceedings in the aforesaid

case.

2. Heard Shri K.S.Patil, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and Shri Ramesh Chigari, the learned HCPG

appearing for the respondent State.

3. The 1st petitioner is the husband. The 2nd petitioner

is the father-in-law, 3rd petitioner is the mother-in-law,

petitioners no.4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law, petitioners no.6

and 7 are the sisters-in-law, petitioners no.8 and 9 are the

distant relatives of the 1st petitioner husband. Marriage between

the complainant and the 1st petitioner takes place on 17.4.2017.

On the relationship between the 1st petitioner and the

complainant turning sore, a complaint is registered by the wife

on 25.4.2020 arraigning all the family members and distant

relatives of the 1st petitioner husband. The allegation in the

complaint is against the 1st petitioner husband and a few stray

sentences about the mother-in-law and the father-in-law. The

other members of the family are unnecessarily dragged into

these proceedings without there being an iota of allegation of

any overtact against them. It is seen that due to want of

jurisdiction the investigation was transferred to Sindhanur. The

Investigating Officer, later has filed the charge sheet without

there being an order to that effect from the competent Court.

Be that as it may,

4. It transpires that during the pendency of these

proceedings the 1st petitioner and the complainant wife have

settled the dispute between themselves by accepting

separation/divorce. While drawing up the mutual divorce, the

averments with regard to the present complaint or the pending

proceedings in C.C.No.2094/2020 is not adverted to. Even

otherwise, if the matter is settled between the 1st petitioner and

the 2nd respondent complainant, by accepting separation, there

are no allegations in the complaint that can relate to the

offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506 of the

IPC or even Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

against all the other members of the family. The brothers-in-

law, sisters-in-law and distant relatives who admittedly do not

stay with the complainant.

5. The allegations against the mother-in-law and

father-in-law are absolutely bald as there are only stray

sentences made against them. It is opposite to refer to 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, 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 both these cases the Apex Curt has delineated

the issue where allegations are made against all other members

of the family and its impact and effect upon those members

without there being any allegations against the other members

of the family. Therefore, in the light of the facts narrated in the

case at hand, more particularly when the dispute between the

1st petitioner and the complainant wife being settled by

separation and the complaint not making out any case against

other members of the family including the father-in-law and the

mother-in-law, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the

proceedings against the petitioners in the light of the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the aforequoted cases.