Smt. Geetha @ Geetha Rani vs G Chandrashekar Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 9210 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7276/2017
                           A/W
              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7012/2017


IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7276/2017:

BETWEEN:

1.   VENKATA REDDY
     S/O NARAYANA REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.29-397,
     INDIRA NAGARA,
     TANAKAL, ANANTHAPURA,
     ANDHRA PRADESH-515 571.

2.   SMT. LAXMI DEVI
     W/O VENKATA REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.29-397, INDIRA NAGARA,
     TANAKAL, ANANTHAPURA,
     ANDHRA PRADESH-515 571.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   G. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
     S/O G. LAKSHMANA REDDY,
                            2



     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.10-193-3,
     VIRUPAKSHESHWARA NAGARA,
     GUTTI ROAD, ANANTHAPUR,
     ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY THE POLICE OF
     MADIWALA POLICE STATION,
     BENGALURU CITY-560 027,

     REPT. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BENGALURU-560 001.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
    SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-2;
    V/O DATED 13.6.2022, PETITION AGAINST
    PETITIONER NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.277/2017 OF
MADIWALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE NOW PENDING ON
THE FILE OF III ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498(A) 306 AND 114 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7012/2017:

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. GEETHA @ GEETHA RANI
     W/O. MACHI REDDY SRINIVAS,
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     OCC: HEAD NURSE
                             3



     GENERAL HOSPITAL KADIRI,
     R/AT NO.1-1135-6-4A,
     ADAPALA STREET, KADIRI,
     ANANTHAPUR,
     ANDHRA PRADESH-515 591.

2.   SMT. SUDHA @ P. SUDHARANI
     W/O PEDDIREDDY MADAN MOHAN REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.28-6-372,
     LIG 654, HOUSING BOARD, COLONY,
     ANANTHAPUR,
     ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001.
                                     ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   G. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
     S/O G. LAKSHMANA REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.10-193-3,
     VIRUPAKSHESHWARA NAGARA,
     GUTTI ROAD, ANANTHAPUR,
     ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY THE POLICE OF
     MADIWALA POLICE STATION,
     BENGALURU CITY-560 027,

     REPT. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BENGALURU-560 001.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
                                 4



    SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-2)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.277/2017 OF
MADIWALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE NOW IN CC
NO.2340/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. C.M.M.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 306, 114 R/W
149 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

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

                            ORDER

Since both the petitions arise out of the same

impugned proceedings, they are taken up together and

disposed of by a common order.

2. The police after investigation submitted a charge

sheet alleging that the daughter of the complainant-witness-

C.W.1 was married to accused No.1 and at the time of the

marriage, cash and gold jewellery was given as dowry. The

accused No.1 is working in a software company in Bengaluru and

accused No.1 and his daughter used to quarrel over trivial issues

and accused No.1 and daughter of CW1 was also not given

proper food. It is further alleged at the instance of accused No.2

to 5, accused No.1 used to subject the victim to mental cruelty

and if she dies he would contract second marriage.

3. Two years prior to lodging of the FIR, unable to bear

the cruelty meted to her, the victim came back to her parental

home and gave birth to the male child. It is further alleged that

the victim returned back to her matrimonial home, Bengaluru on

06.06.2017. and on 11.06.2017 unable to bear the cruelty

meted to her by accused No.1 at the instance of other accused ,

she committed suicide.

4. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge

sheet took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections

498A 306 and 114 read with 149 of IPC and issued summons.

Taking exception to the same, these petitions are filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that

the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners-

accused No.2 to 5 were not residing with the victim and the

charge sheet is filed only on the basis of omnibus and general

allegations made against the petitioners-accused. Hence, he

submits in the absence of any corroborative material that the

victim was subjected to cruelty at the instance of the petitioners-

accused, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners-

accused is impermissible. He further submits that in the

absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the

commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC,

the charge sheet filed against the petitioners-accused is one

without substance.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1 and learned HCGP appearing for the State

submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that, at

the instigation of accused No.2 to 5, accused No.1 subjected the

victim to cruelty and unable to bear the cruelty meted out to

her, victim committed suicide. Hence, they submits that the

commission of the offence alleged against the petitioners-

accused and as such the charge sheet filed against the

petitioners-accused cannot be faulted with and the same does

not warrant any interference.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. Marriage of the accused No.1 with the daughter of

complainant-witness was solemnized on 18.06.2014 and after

the marriage they led their marital life at Bengaluru. It is

undisputed that the petitioners-accused were not residing with

the daughter of the complainant-witness at any point of time and

two years prior to lodging of the FIR, the victim came back to her

parental house and delivered a male child. It is only on 6.6.2017

she returned to her matrimonial home at Bengaluru to continue

with her marital life and on 11.06.2017 unable to bear the

cruelty meted out to her by accused No.1 she committed suicide.

This clearly implies that petitioners-accused did not leave

together with the victim at any point of time after the marriage

and the only allegations is that accused No.1 at their instance

subjected the victim to cruelty.

9. The Hon'ble 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."

10. To constitute the commission of offence punishable

under Section 306 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of S S Chheena -vs- Vijaykumar Mahajan and another reported

in 2010 (12) SCC 190 at para-25 has held as follows:

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to

commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

11. The charge sheet material does not disclose that

there was a clear mens rea to commit the offence and also due

to the direct or indirect act of the petitioner - accused led the

deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must

have been intended to push the deceased into such a position to

commit suicide.

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

general and omnibus allegations and in the absence of any

corroborative material, the allegations that the petitioners-

accused instigated accused No.1 to subject the victim to cruelty,

the filing of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance against

the petitioners-accused is without any substance.

13. 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:

The Criminal Petitions are allowed.

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2340/2018 pending on the file of the on the file of the III ACMM, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 is hereby quashed.

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A No.1/2020 shall stand consigned to the record room.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR