Mahamayi Alias Mamakka W/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8234 Kant

                          -1-




                                  CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101644 OF 2021 (482)
BETWEEN:

MAHAMAYI @ MAMAKKA W/O. GIRISH KADLIMATTI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SBI BANK ROAD, GANESH NAGAR,
HEBUSUR, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST DHARWAD-581209.

                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUMANGALA A.CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     (THROUGH HUBLI RURAL P.S.)
     REPRESENTED BY SPP,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

2.   MALLESH S/O. GUDADAPPA TALAKAL
     AGE: 50 YEAR, OCC: CONTRACTOR,
     R/O. 17 WARD, CHALAWADI ONI,
     HOSAPETE, DISTRICT-BALLARI-583201.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SUNILKUMAR P
BANGARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. JMFC
HUBBALLI IN CC NO.173/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES
                                 -2-




                                       CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021


PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 306, 304B, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF
IPC AND SECTION 3 OF D.P.ACT, PURSUANT TO THE SAID FIR
AND COMPLAINT AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF.

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


                             ORDER

1. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the

consent of the parties, it is taken up for disposal.

2. Heard Smt. Sumangala A. Chakalabbi, learned

counsel for the petitioner; Sri Praveen Uppar, learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1; and Sri

Sunilkumar P. Bangari, learned counsel for respondent No.2

and perused the records.

3. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC.

with the following prayer:

"Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the above criminal petition and quash the entire proceedings pending before the. II JMFC Hubballi in CC No. 173/2021 for the offences punishable Under Sec.498A, 306, 304B, 201 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 of D.P. Act. pursuant to the said FIR and Complaint and grant any other relief in the interest of justice and equity."

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Upon a complaint lodged by Mallesh Gudadappa Talakal,

Hubli Rural Police registered a case in Crime No. 0214/2020 for

the offence punishable under section 498A, 302, 304B and 201

read with Section 34 IPC, wherein, the present petitioner is

shown as Accused No.5.

5. The complaint averments reveals that Netravathi

being the daughter of the complainant, studied BE in Hubli and

after completion of her studies, she joined a private company in

Hospet. After some time, with all earnings and belongings, she

left her parents and started living in the house of

Ramachandrappa Neelakantappa Kale at Shiraguppi. The

complainant and his family members severed all connections

with the Netravathi and decided that Netravathi is no longer

concern to their family. Thereafterwords, they came to know

that Netravathi is getting married to Ramachandrappa

Neelakantappa Kale and the complainant and his family

members did not attend the marriage. Subsequent to the

marriage, two - three times, Netravathi called her mother i.e.,

the wife of the complainant stating that there is a physical and

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

mental harassment imparted to her on the ground of demand

of dowry including the present petitioner. However, the wife of

the complainant did not bring it to the notice of the police

about the said harassment, but she told that she has married

against the will of the members of the family of the

complainant and therefore, she has to suffer the same.

Subsequently, on 07.11.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., when the

complainant was in his house, he received call from Suresh who

is the brother-in-law that Netravathi died in the

Ramachandrappa Neelakantappa Kale's house. Accordingly,

the complainant and his wife and others visited the house of

Ramachandrappa Neelakantappa Kale at Shiraguppi and

noticed that the dead body had a ligature mark around the

neck. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint before the police

that accused persons including the present petitioner, harassed

Nethravathi for want of dowry and ultimately, killed her and in

order to escape from the rigors of law, they made it appear

that she committed suicide and therefore, sought for action.

Police after registering the case, based on the said complaint,

registered a case as aforesaid and are investigating the matter

and filed the charge sheet.

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

6. Petitioner is the 5th accused in the said charge

sheet.

7. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and the

matter is now in the process of committing to the Sessions

Court for trial. Registering the case against the petitioner has

been challenged by the 5th accused on the following grounds:

It is submitted that in the first instance, it is made clear that no such incidence is occurred as alleged by the complainant. It is a false complaint Just to harass the petitioners and to see them behind the bars. This is the classic case for abuse of process of law.

It is submitted that there are no ingredients of the offence made out in the complaint so as to attract the same. At a glance of the complaint, it can be easily made out that, at the instance of complainant, Complaint came to be registered to see the petitioner behind the bars.

It is submitted that complainant has filed a false Complaint against all family members.

It is submitted that there is nothing in the complaint to attract the ingredients of the offences punishable Under sec. 498A, 306, 304B, 201 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 of D.P. Act

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

That petitioner was 8 months Pregnant at the time of incident and she is residing her matrimonial House at Hebasur.

The petitioners hailing from a religious and humble family, and more specifically from a priestly class which generally engages in performing all the religious and pious functions have never imagined the committing any offence against anybody.

It is submitted that the post mortem report clearly demonstrates that the death is not due to homicidal hanging.

The witnesses relied by the prosecution are merely hearsay witnesses and hence there is no material evidence against the accused/petitioner.

If the charge sheet is allowed to sustain it will seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioners as it would only amount to an abuse of process of law by the complainant.

It is submit that, after carefully evaluating the materials on record, it does not disclose the involvement of the above petitioner/Accused No. 5 in the said case. But the IO falsely implicated the innocent petitioner/Accused No. 5 as accused in the above case.

That if the impugned proceedings are allowed to be continued it would certainly amount to an abuse of

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

process of court and as such proceedings should be quashed at this stage itself.

The petitioners may be allowed to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing."

8. Reiterating the above grounds, the learned counsel

for the petitioner Smt.Sumangala A.Chakalabbi, contended that

the present petitioner is living at Hubli with her husband and

has not at all participated in any of the affairs of the deceased

Netravathi and her husband. Admittedly, the marriage of the

deceased Netravathi with Ramachandrappa Neelakantappa Kale

is a love marriage and therefore, none of the relatives have

participated in the said marriage and therefore, the question of

demand of dowry or otherwise would not come into picture.

She also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in

the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State

of Bihar & Ors rendered in Criminal Appeal No.195/2022

dated 08.02.2022 in this regard and stated that it has become

a menace to rope in all the relatives of the husband in a matter

of this nature and sought for quashing of the proceedings.

9. Per contra Sri Sunilkumar P. Bangari, learned

counsel representing the de-facto complainant contended that

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

in the complaint itself, there is a specific allegations that the

present petitioner has also joined her hands in demanding

additional dowry and since the same was not met, they have

harassed Netravathi and are responsible for the death of

Netravathi resulting in dowry death and thus sought for

dismissal of the petition.

10. Learned High Court Government Pleader supports

the case of the defacto complainant and by adopting the

arguments put forth on behalf of the defacto complainant.

11. Perused the materials on record in the light of the

rival contention of the parties.

12. Admittedly, Netravati married to Ramachandrappa

Neelakantappa Kale, at Shiraguppi against the will of her

parents. It is also found from the complaint averments itself

that complainant, his wife and none from the complainant's

family attended the family of Netravathi with Ramachandrappa

as it was a love marriage. Even according to the complaint

averments, the alleged harassment said to have been taken

place in the house of Kale has been reported to the mother of

the deceased 2-3 times, but the mother of the deceased.. has

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

specifically told Nethravathi that she has to suffer the same as

she has married against the will of her parents. What

prevented the complainant or his wife to lodge a complaint

about the alleged harassment in the life time of Netravathi is

not forthcoming on record. Further, the alleged date of

marriage is also not mentioned in the complaint. In other

words, the averments made in the complaint are very much

vague in nature and in the nature of omnibus allegations.

13. Admittedly, the present petitioner is married earlier

to Nethravathi and she is living with her husband in Hubli.

Whether at all, she could have been party to the alleged

harassment or not is a question that has been properly

investigated by the police. Just because she is the younger

sister of Kale, she should not be roped in the aforesaid offences

in the absence of any specific allegations found in the complaint

itself.

14. The materials collected by the Investigation Officer

is also not specific as to what exactly is the role that has been

played by the present petitioner in the alleged harassment.

Admittedly, the present petitioner did not share a common roof

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 101644 of 2021

along with Ramachandra Neelakanta Kale as she is residing

separately in Hubli. Under such circumstances, the principles

of law enunciated in Kousar's case is aptly applicable to the

case on hand in accepting the prayer made by the petitioner.

Hence, this court pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Consequently, the entire proceedings pending before

the II JMFC, Hubballi in CC No.173/2021 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B, 201 read with

section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*