Karnataka High Court

Mr Sathya Narayana Murthy K vs State By Hosadurga Police on 2 June, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8394/2016

BETWEEN:

1.    MR. SATHYA NARAYANA MURTHY K
      S/O SHIVAPPAREDDY,
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

2.    SMT. BHAGYAMMA
      W/O SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY K,
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

3.    MR. NAVEEN KUMAR
      S/O SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY K,
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

      PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
      RESIDING AT OPP.VIJAY BHARATH PETROL BUNK,
      IYYAPPASWAMY EXTENSION, HULIYUR ROAD,
      HOSADURGA TOWN,
      CHITRADURGA.

4.    SMT. USHA
      D/O SATHYA NARAYANA MURTHY K
      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
      RESIDING AT BASAVANAHALLI EXTENSION,
      CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN,
      CHIKKAMAGALURU.
                             2



5.     SRI TARANATHA
       S/O GURAIAH,
       R/AT BALLALASAMUDRA P.O.,
       HOSADURGA TALUK
       CHITRADURGA.
                                            ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI GOVINDARAJU K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE BY HOSADURGA POLICE
     HOSADURGA CIRCLE,
     CHITRADURGA.

2.   SMT. REKHA G C
     W/O NATARAJA K S
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     R/AT HUCCHAVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     JAGALUR TQ,
     DAVANAGERE-577 528.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1;
    SRI M. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ANNEXURE-F FILED IN CRIME
NO.19/2016,    CONSEQUENTLY     THE    PROCEEDINGS   IN
C.C.NO.638/2016 ANNEXURE-G PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSADURGA BY DISCHARGING THE
PETITIONERS FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3



                             ORDER

Respondent No.2 lodged the first information report on

30.10.2015 alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the

accused No.1 and at the time of marriage her parents gave a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash and 50 Thola gold as

dowry. Initially, she was looked after well by the accused and

thereafter the accused started to subject her to cruelty both

mentally and physically. On 9.9.2013 by making frivolous

allegation, the accused picked up quarrel and subjected the

second respondent to cruelty both mentally and physically and

asked her to bring 250 grams of gold from her father and asked

her to leave the house along with her son. Later she started

leaving in her parental house and one month prior to lodging of

the FIR, when her parents and her son had gone to Davanagere,

at that time, accused came to her parental house and abused

her in filthy language, assaulted her and also threatened her that

they would kill her.

2. The Police registered the FIR for the offence

punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Police

after investigation submitted the charge sheet for the aforesaid

offences before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate

after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid

offences and issued summons. Taking exception to the same,

this petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit

that the FIR was lodged by the second respondent as an after

thought so as to circumvent the proceedings initiated by accused

No.1 who is the husband of the complainant for restitution of

conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He

further submits that the second respondent has left matrimonial

home on 9.9.2013. However, the FIR was lodged on 30.10.2015

without offering plausible explanation which clearly implies that

the petitioners-accused who are the parent-in-law, sister-in-law

and brother-in-law with ulterior motive to harass and wreck

vengeance against the petitioners-accused. Hence, he submits

in the absence of any corroborative material, the charge sheet

submitted against the petitioners-accused on omnibus and

general allegations made by the second respondent is one

without substance.

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the

State submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses

the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioners-

accused and as such the charge sheet filed against the

petitioners-accused does not warrant any interference.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. Marriage of the second respondent was solemnized

with the accused No.1 on 17.2.2008. The second respondent in

the FIR alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial

home on 9.9.2013. The accused No.1 had issued notice calling

upon the second respondent to resume marital life on

16.06.2015 and since the second respondent did not respond to

the said notice, he was constrained to file petition under Section

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17.7.2015.

7. The second respondent lodged the FIR on

30.10.2015. The FIR was lodged, after leaving her matrimonial

home on 9.9.2013 and after receiving the notice issued by

accused No.1 calling upon her to resume marital life, which

clearly implies that the second respondent lodged the FIR, to

falsely implicate the petitioners-accused. The dispute arises out

of the marital discord, which is evident from the petition filed by

the accused no.1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and

also a petition filed under Section 131(a) of the said Act for

dissolution of his marriage with the second respondent on the

ground of cruelty, which came to be allowed on 24.11.2021.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar -Vs-

State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, at para 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 and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

9. The charge sheet is filed only on the basis of the

general and omnibus allegations made in the course of the

marital discord and in the absence of any corroborative material,

the filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance against the

petitioners-accused who are the parent-in-laws, sister-in-law and

Brothers-in-law is without substance.

10. The respondent No.2 has alleged in the FIR that she

was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 09.09.2013 but

however, the FIR was lodged on 18.09.2015, without offering

any plausible explanation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Andhra Pradesh -vs- M.Madhusudhan Rao, reported in

(2008) 15 SCC 582 at para 30 has held as follows:

''30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has

been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity.

Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.''

11. Respondent No.2 has not offered any plausible

explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR which clearly implies

that the allegation made in the FIR is an after thought to give a

criminal texture to falsely implicate the petitioners-accused and

to wreck vengeance. Hence, in the absence of any plausible

explanation, the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 is with

malice and without probable cause.

12. In view of the above, the continuation of proceedings

against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law

since the possibility of the conviction of the petitioners-accused is

remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following order: