Smt. Jyothi W/O. Malatesh N vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 406 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100975/2021
       C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100966/2021

IN CRL.P.NO.100975/2021
BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. JYOTHI W/O. MALATESH N
     AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. CHIKKAHIDAGOL, TQ. ANAVATTI,
     DIST. SHIVAMOGGA,
     NOW DOOR NO.481/5,
     2ND WARD, VEERASANDRA,
     ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560001.

2.   DEVENDRAPPA S/O. KIRTEPPA UJJANAGOUDRA
     AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. ELECTRICAL WORK,
     R/O. NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI THEATRE,
     CHIKKANALLI BADAWANE,
     NITAVALLI, DAVANAGERI-577001.

3.   SHIVAYOGI @ YOGESH
     S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA SHIRSI,
     AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
     R/O. HALEPETE ONI, BYADGI,
     NOW R/O. 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
     VINOBHA NAGAR, DAVANAGERI-577001.
                          2




4.    SMT. MANGALA W/O.SHIVAYOGI @ YOGESH SHIRSI,
      AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
      R/O. HALEPETE ONI, BYADGI,
      NOW R/O. 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
      VINOBHA NAGAR, DAVANAGERI-577001.
                                     ...PETITIONERS
      (BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THROUGH RANEBENNUR TOWN CIRCLE POLICE,
      R/BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.

2.    PRAKASH S/O. SHEKHAPPA BURADIKATTI
      AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. CHOLMARDESHWAR NAGAR,
      NEAR SHIBARKATTE, RANEBENNUR,
      DIST. HAVERI-581110.
                                     ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR RESP.NO.1 )
(BY SRI J.BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
S.C.NO.10/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 498A, 304(B) R/W SEC.149 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF PROHIBITION OF DOWRY ACT,
SO FOR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.
                           3




IN CRL.P.NO.100966/2021
BETWEEN:
VAGEESHA S/O. MUKESHAPPA KORERA
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH RANEBENNUR TOWN CIRCLE POLICE,
     R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 020.

2.   PRAKASH S/O. SHEKHAPPA BURADIKATTI
     AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. NEAR SHIBARGATTE,
     CHOLAMARDESHWAR NAGAR,
     RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 110.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI J.BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
S.C.NO.10/21 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 498(A), 304(B) R/W SECTION 149 IPC
AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF PROHIBITION OF DOWRY ACT
SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
                              4




     THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.100975 and

100966 of 2021 are before this Court calling in question

the proceedings in Sessions Case No.10/2021 registered

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 498A and 304B read with Section 149

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

2. Heard Sri Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1-State and Sri J.Basavaraj, learned counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant.

3. Facts projected by the prosecution are as follows :

The 2nd respondent-complainant is the brother of the

deceased-wife of accused No.1, who is not before the

Court. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.100975/2021 are

accused Nos.5 to 8 the sister, maternal uncle and the wife

of the 3rd petitioner (the maternal uncle), who is again the

maternal uncle of the husband. The petitioner in Criminal

Petition No.100966/2021 is the accused No.4, who is

brother of accused No.1-husband.

4. Marriage between the deceased and the 1st

accused takes place on 16.12.2018. It is the case of the

complainant that right from the date of marriage despite

giving of huge dowry further demands were consistently

made by all the members of the family including the

petitioners. The complainant narrates that the deceased

was driven out of the house and began to reside with the

2nd respondent her brother, where she commits suicide by

leaving a death note. The narration in the death note

points that all the petitioners including the husband as the

reason for the committal of suicide of the deceased.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would urge a solitary contention that all other members of

the family cannot be dragged into a proceeding either

under Section 498A of IPC or under Section 304B of IPC

and would place reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v.

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

SCC 741 to buttress his submission that other members of

the family should not be dragged into the proceedings

between the husband and the wife.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing

for the complainant and the learned HCGP for the State

would in unison contend that the trial against the

petitioners are in progress and the charge sheet is filed

against the petitioners which clearly point at the

circumstances that led to the deceased committing suicide

and it is a matter of trial that the petitioners will have to

come out clean.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective counsel and have

perused the material on record.

8. The afore narrated dates or events not being in

dispute need not be reiterated. The submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioners is that the deceased

went back to the house of the 2nd respondent five months

prior to the date of committing suicide, this circumstance is

enough to quash the proceedings against the petitioners,

who are other members of the family, is unacceptable as

the complaint, the death note, investigation and the charge

sheet, all of them point at the instances that led to the

deceased committing suicide. It is for that reason Section

304B of IPC is invoked against the petitioners apart from

Section 498A of IPC and other offences.

9. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioners in the case of Geeta Mehrotra supra did not

consider the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC,

it is only the head note that refers to Section 304B of IPC.

Head note is not the Judgment, not the observations of the

Hon'ble Judges, who pen down the Judgments. Nowhere in

the Judgment there is reference to even Section 304B of

IPC in the said Judgment as that was not even offence that

was alleged in the case considered before the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra, therefore, reliance

placed on the said Judgment by the learned counsel for the

petitioners is misplaced.

10. In the light of the trial in progress after the

charge sheet being filed any further observations made by

this Court in the case at hand with regard to the merit of

the matter will prejudice the defence of the petitioners

before the trial Court. Therefore, no further observation is

made. Finding no merit in the petitions. Petitions are

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE CKK