Prashanth Thathachar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10324 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10324 Kant
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Prashanth Thathachar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.8675 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.      PRASHANTH THATHACHAR,
        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
        S/O LATE SRINIVASA THATHACHAR,
        R/AT NO.523/1, F-21,
        2ND RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA,
        POTRA MOHALLA,
        MYSURU CITY - 570 004.

2.      SMT. KANTHAMANI,
        AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
        W/O LATE SRINIVASA THATHACHAR,
        R/AT NO.297, RAMANUJA MAIN ROAD,
        AGRAHARA,
        MYSURU CITY - 570 004.

3.      SMT. H.S. RANGASRI @ RANGAMANI
        @ DIVYA,
        AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
        W/O L. RANGARAJAN,
        R/AT D.NO.2267/2,
        BASAVESHWARA ROAD,
        6TH CROSS, K.R. MOHALLA,
        MYSURU CITY - 570 004.

4.      L. RANGARAJAN,
        AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
        S/O A.G. LAKSHMANA IYANGAR,
                            2


       R/AT D.NO.226/2,
       BASAVESHWARA ROAD,
       6TH CROSS, K.R. MOHALLA,
       MYSURU CITY - 570 004.
                                       ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR.K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
       MYSURU,
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT BUILDING,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     SMT. SANGEETHA .N,
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
       W/O PRASHANTH THATHACHAR,
       R/AT NO.1500, CH-68,
       6TH CROSS, K.R. VANAM,
       MYSURU CITY - 570 006.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. B.LETHIF, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.48/2015 (CR.NO.143/2013)
REGISTERED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT NOW THE
CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU.
                              3


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

FIR was lodged by the second respondent alleging

that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on

28.11.2010 and they led cordial marital life for six

months and thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.1

started to harass her to bring money for investing in a

business. The second respondent out of her savings

gave a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and also by pledging gold

ornaments of her mother gave a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-

to accused No.1. It is alleged that the accused No.1

without investing the amount in the business, used the

same for gambling and for consuming alcohol. It is also

alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 and the other

accused who are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and

brother-in-law started to harass her to bring money

from her parental home. It is further alleged that on

02.11.2013 at about 12:00am petitioner-accused No.1

came to her parental home and demanded to bring

money from her parental home failing which, he

threatened to kill her and her mother. The police after

investigation submitted the charge sheet for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with

34 of Section IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Learned Magistrate after accepting the

charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences

and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this

petition is filed.

3. I have examined the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

4. A perusal of charge sheet discloses that

there is no specific allegation against the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 to 4 who are mother-in-law, sister-in-law

and brother-in-law of accused No.1 for having subjected

the second respondent to cruelty both mentally and

physically and also there was demand made by the said

accused to bring money from her parental home, except

omnibus and general allegations.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar1 at

para No.18 has held as follows:

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives

2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

Hence, the charge sheet filed insofar as it relates

to petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 on the basis of

omnibus and general allegations and in the absence of

any corroborative material is one without any

substance. Insofar as it relates to petitioner-accused

No.1, the charge sheet material primafacie discloses

the commission of the offences alleged against

petitioner-accused No.1. The various contentions

urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on

behalf of the petitioner-accused No.1 is the matter

which requires to be considered after full fledged trial.

Accordingly, I pass the following: