Karnataka High Court

Smt. Shilpa vs State By Magadi Road Police on 23 March, 2022

Bench: K.Natarajan

                            1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9443/2018

BETWEEN

SMT. SHILPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O. RAJKUMAR
KAWSTHUBHAM PRAYAR NORTH
PRAYER POST, ALLEPPEY
KERALA - 690 547.                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE
      BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      HIGH COURT BULDING
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    SMT. SOWMYA
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
      W/O. HARISH
      NO.92/1, 5TH CROSS
      GOPALPURA, MAGADI ROAD
      BENGALURU - 560 023.               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1469/2016 ON THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU,
                                 2


PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIME
NO.204/2015 BY THE MAGADI ROAD POLICE, BENGALURU
AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504,
498(A) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND
4 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

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

                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the

criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1469/2016 on the file

of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru related to the Crime No.204/2015

registered by the Magadi Road Police, Bengaluru, for

the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504,

506, 498 (A) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned

counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of respondent No.2, case came to be

registered by Magadi Road Police Station, Bengaluru,

on 25.06.2015 alleging that she had married to the

accused No.1, the brother of this petitioner on

08.03.2015 and prior to the marriage the accused

Nos.1 to 3 and this petitioner had come to the house

and demanded 300 gms of gold and Rs.3 lakhs cash,

as dowry and her father had agreed to give Rs.2 lakhs

of gold, accordingly on 07.02.2014 the engagement

was performed. Subsequently, she married and went

to the house of parents-in-law where the accused

Nos.1 to 3 along with this petitioner started harassing

her physically and mentally by demanding additional

dowry. Again she further states that the accused

Nos.2 and 3, parents-in-law and this petitioner did not

allow her brother-accused No.1, to stay with her until

she pays Rs.50 lakhs or to bring site. Again on

17.05.2015 all these accused persons demanded

Rs.15 lakhs and she came to the house and informed

to her parents. Again on 23.05.2015 the accused

persons came to the house of the complainant and

informed that she requires counseling as she is

suffering from psychiatric problem and returned

without taking her back to the matrimonial house.

Later she herself and her mother went to the house of

accused persons, they did not allow her and thrown

her out of the house and tried to squeeze her neck.

Therefore, the panchayath also held on 07.05.2015

and 09.06.2015 and accused persons did not mend his

way. Thereafter on the eve of Ashada month her

parents brought her back to the husband house and

thereafter accused came and thrown her out of the

house. After registering the case the police

investigated the matter, filed charge sheet and being

aggrieved by the same petitioner/accused No.4, the

sister-in-law of the complainant is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that there is no specific allegation against

this petitioner except omnibus statement made

against the petitioner and she is from Kerala-Alleppey.

The petitioner living with her husband and son in

Kerala and recently her husband went abroad and she

is also preparing to go abroad. The complainant has

falsely included her name which amounts to abuse of

process of law. In support of his contention he relied

on the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors

Vs. State of Bihar and Ors in Crl.A.No.195/2020

(arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6545/2020 for

quashing petition.

5. Per contra the learned HCGP seriously

objected that there is averments made in the

complaint that the accused and this petitioner also

joined the mother-in-law and harassed the

complainant and there is sufficient material placed on

record to frame the charges.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal

of records, ofcourse it is admitted fact that she is

married to accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are

parents-in-law and this petitioners is sister-in-law of

the complainant. The learned counsel submits the

petitioner was residing in Alleppey in Kerala along with

her husband and son. However, the learned counsel

also submits as her husband is in abroad now it is not

acceptable that she was alone in Kerala and did not

come to the house of the parents. However, the

arguments made against accused No.1 who is

husband and the accused No.2 were parents-in-law

that they demanded dowry of Rs.3 lakhs and had

agreed to receive Rs.2 lakhs apart from receiving 200

gms of gold, after having demanded 300 gms.

Subsequently they also demanded Rs.15 lakhs or a

site in the name of the accused No.1. The complainant

has struggled regular harassment in the hands of the

accused persons and also the accused taken defense

that she is suffering from psychological problems

therefore they want to take her to psychiatrist but she

refused to go. Subsequently they went to the house

of the accused Nos.1 and 3 where they have not

allowed her and said to be thrown out of the house,

the complainant and her mother. The submission of

the mother of the complainant is also recorded. The

statement of mother also recorded.

7. On perusal of statement of the complainant

ofcourse there is specific allegation made against the

accused Nos.1 to 3. However in the entire complaint

the name of this petitioner is added as accused No.4

and specifically there is no averments against this

petitioner for having committed any harassment for

the complainant individually or abating the other

accused to commit any such offences, the allegation

against the other accused attracts the offence under

Sections 323 and 498A of abusing her in filthy

language and harassment. There is no specific

averments against accused. The allegation made

against this petitioner does not fall under any

offences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Kahskashan Kausa @ Sonam & Ors stated supra

has held as under (in para 18):

" 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A 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."

8. Admittedly, the entire statement of the victim

complainant is against accused No.1 and her parents-

in-law and her statement is omnibus statement

stating that the present petitioner is also present and

committed offence along with accused Nos.1 to 3.

Therefore it cannot be acceptable that this petitioner

also harassed the complainant physically and mentally

and demanded any dowry or additional dowry.

Therefore conducting trial against this petitioner will

be abuse of process of law. Hence the proceedings are

liable to be quashed.

This petition is allowed.