Karnataka High Court

Yashwanth Bhaskar vs State By Basavanagudi P.S on 14 June, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.7457/2019

BETWEEN:

1.      YASHWANTH BHASKAR
        S/O N PUTTARAMEGOWDA
        R/AT NO.4205, TWIN OAKS CT,
        MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY - 08852
        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
        BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
        N PUTTARAMEGOWDA

2.      N.PUTTARAMEGOWDA
        S/O NANJEGOWDA
        AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

3.      D.N.MANJULAMBA
        W/O N.PUTTARAMEGOWDA
        AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

        PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE
        R/AT NO.1095, 9TH CROSS
        4TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH BLOCK
        HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA
        BENGALURU - 560 097

4.      NANDINI B P
        W/O VASANTH KUMAR C R
        AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                            2


5.     VASANTH KUMAR C R
       S/O RANGEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

       PETITIONERS NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT
       NO.115/2, 2ND MAIN
       RANGAMARUTHI APARTMENT
       KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH
       BENGALURU - 560 079             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K.B.S.MANIAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI P.S.
       BENGALURU CITY

2.     SINDHU YASHWANTH
       W/O YASHWANTH
       AGED 30 YEARS
       R/O NO.226, R K STREET
       SHESHADRIPURAM
       BENGALURU CITY                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI.S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.123/2019 OF BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION ON
THE FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU, AT
ANNEXURE-A DATED 02.08.2019 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A READ WITH 34 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.


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



                       ORDER

Charge sheet is filed alleging that the marriage

of accused No.1 with CW.1 was solemnised on

15.06.2014. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents in law,

accused No.4 is the sister in law and accused No.5 is

the husband of the fourth accused.

2. After the marriage, she went to United

States of America on 24.06.2014 along with her

husband. During her stay in USA she was subjected

to cruelty both physically and mentally at the instance

of the other accused and she was also assaulted by

accused No.1. It is further alleged that accused No.1

at the instance of other accused demanded to bring

money from her parental home. It is alleged that she

returned to India on 20.11.2017 and thereafter

started to reside at her parental home. It is alleged

that on 23.07.2019 she went for hearing of the case

filed by her husband and when she tried to talk to her

husband at that point in time her father-in-law and

brother-in-law objected and threatened to give

complaint to the Police.

3. The learned Magistrate accepted the charge

sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498A

read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons to the

petitioners-accused. Taking exception to the same,

this petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that except omnibus and general allegations, there is

no specific allegation made against the petitioners-

accused for having committed the aforesaid offences.

In the absence of any corroborative material, the filing

of the charge sheet only on the basis of omnibus and

general allegation is impermissible. He further

submits that FIR was lodged as a counter blast to the

petition filed for dissolving the marriage on the ground

of cruelty.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet

material clearly disclose the commission of the offence

alleged against the petitioners-accused and he further

submits that there is specific allegation of cruelty

made out by accused No.1 at the instance of other

accused and the same does not warrant any

interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned HCGP would adopt the submissions

made by learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. I have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties.

8. A perusal of the first information report

lodged by respondent No.2 indicates that her marriage

was solemnised with accused No.1 on 15.06.2014 and

on 24.06.2014 she left to USA along with her husband

and continued her marital life with accused No.1 in

USA till she returned to India on 20.11.2017. During

her stay at USA she was subjected to cruelty by

accused No.1 at the instance of other accused and

also there was demand to bring money from her

parental home. Before lodging of FIR, the accused

No.1 had filed a petition for dissolving the marriage

with respondent No.2 on the ground of cruelty. The said

petition was filed on 06.08.2018. The FIR was lodged

on 02.08.2019 after nearly 2 years on her arrival from

USA without offering any plausible explanation.

9. The Apex Court in the case of State of

Andhra Pradesh vs. Madhusudan Rao1 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

(2008)15 SCC 582

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."

10. FIR was lodged without offering any plausible

explanation as an afterthought so as to circumvent the

proceeding initiated by accused No.1 to dissolve his

marriage with respondent No.2 on the ground of cruelty.

Hence, the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 without

offering any plausible explanation is malice and without

probable cause.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar2 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 and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

12. Except omnibus and general allegation, there

is no specific allegation as against accused Nos.2 to 5 as

2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

to how and in what manner she was subjected to cruelty

by the petitioners-accused. Hence, the continuation of

the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be

an abuse of process of law, and the FIR was lodges so

as to falsely implicate and wreak vengeance.

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed. The impugned

C.C.No.19910/2019 pending on the file of II Addl. Chief