Sri N C Chandrashekar vs Smt. Mahalakshmi
2022 Latest Caselaw 12314 Kant

                            1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.9023 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1 . SRI N C CHANDRASHEKAR
    S/O CHELUVAIAH
    AGE 48 YEARS,
    R/O NAGARAHALLI,
    GANDSI HOBLI
    TALUK ARASIKERE,
    DISTRICT HASSAN
    PIN CODE-573119.

2 . JAYAKEERTHI
    S/O JANAKALLAYA,
    AGE 37 YEARS,

3 . SMT.POOJA
    D/O THIMMAIAH
    W/O JAYAKEERTHI
    AGE 25 YEARS,

   PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT
   ARASIKERE NAGAR
   HASSAN TALUK - 573 201

   PRESENTLY R/AT
   DOOR NO 7566, 1ST FLOOR,
   3RD MAIN, 14TH CROSS,
   HOYSALA NAGAR,
   RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
   NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE,
   BANGALORE NORTH,
   DOORAVANINAGAR -560 016.
                             2


4 . SMT.GOWRAMMA R
    W/O N.R.CHANDRASHAKHAR
    AGE 42 YEARS,

5 . SRI.ANILKUMAR
    S/O N.C.CHANDRASHEKHAR
    AGE 26 YEARS,

6 . SMT.MAMATA ALIAS SUSHMITHA
    W/O ABHIJEET AND
    D/O N.C.CHANDRASHKHAR
    AGE 25 YEARS,

7 . KUMARI RANJITA
    D/O N.C.CHANDRASHEKHAR
    AGE 21 YEARS,

   PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 7 ARE
   R/O NAGARAHALLI,
   GANDSIHOBLI,
   TALUK ARASIKERE
   DIST HASSAN
   PIN CODE-573 119.
                                      ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.P. HONAKHANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . SMT. MAHALAKSHMI
    W/O NAVEEN KUMAR,
    AGE 29 YEARS,

      DOOR NO.203, 14TH CROSS,
      SUNIL GRANITE, HOYSALA NAGARA
      3RD MAIN, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
      BENGALURU - 560 016.

      DOOR NO.10, 6TH CROSS,
      1ST MAIN, DEEPANJALINAGAR,
      BENGALURU-560026.
                              3


2 . WOMAN POLICE STATION
    EAST ZONE,
    BENGALURU - 51

    REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
    BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R2
 SRI MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.13696/2021    REGISTERED     FOR   THE    OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A,120B,109,114,506 R/W
34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
NO.1 TO 7 BEING ACCUSED NO.2 TO 8, ON THE FILE OF THE VI
ACMM, BANGALORE AND DISCHARGE THEM OF THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES AND SET THEM AT LIBERTY.

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

                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.2

to 8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.13696/2021 registered by Women

Police Station, East Zone, Bengaluru in Crime No.113/2020

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 120B,

109, 114, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the D.P.Act, now pending on the file of VI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent No.2-State and learned counsel for the

respondent No.1.

3. The case of the prosecution is that CW.1-Smt.

Mahalakshmi, wife of accused No.1 (he is not a petitioner

before this Court) filed a complaint to the police on

03.12.2020 alleging that she married accused No.1-

Naveen Kumar and their marriage was held on

15.06.2012. Accused No.1 was not having parents,

therefore, accused Nos.2 and 5 being the uncle and aunt of

accused No.1 came forward to perform his marriage, they

demanded dowry and at their instance, the dowry was

given to accused No.1 to the tune of Rs.50,000/- cash,

gold chain, watch, suit etc. and the marriage was

performed by her mother and sister i.e., C.W.4 and C.W.5.

After the marriage, they were having two children.

Accused Nos.3 and 4 said to be brother and sister-in-law of

accused No.1. They were residing along with accused No.1

and the complainant. They started harassing the

complainant physically and mentally. Accused Nos.2 and 5

along with their family members used to instigate accused

No.1 and in turn accused No.1 used to quarrel with the

complainant. When accused No.1 gets his monthly salary,

accused Nos.2 and 5 to 8 used to visit the house, stay for

two to three days over there and at that time, they

instigated accused No.1 to harass the complainant and

finally, there was a panchayath held in the presence of the

accused, they also said to be advised the complainant to

lead happy marital life with accused No.1. Subsequently,

the complaint came to be filed alleging that she came to

know that accused No.1 contacted second marriage with

one Niveditha. Therefore, the complainant prayed for

taking action. After registering the case, the Police

investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet which is

under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that accused Nos.2, 5 to 8 were staying at

Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District. Accused No.1 along with

accused Nos.3 and 4 were residing in Bengaluru. Except

participating in the marriage, they have not visited the

house of accused No.1. They never instigated accused

No.1 for anything. There is no specific allegation against

them. Except the omnibus and general allegation against

them, absolutely there is no record to show that these

petitioners were harassed the complainant physically and

mentally in demanding dowry or performing the marriage

of Niveditha with accused No.1. They have been falsely

implicated in the case. There is no specific allegation for

framing the charges against them. The trial Court also took

cognizance without properly analyzing the fact of the case.

Hence, prayed for quashing the charge-sheet filed against

the petitioners. In support of his arguments, the learned

counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Kahkashan Kausar @ Soman & Ors. vs. State of Bihar

& Ors. in Crl.A.No.195 of 2020 (arising out of

S.L.P(Crl.) No.6545 of 2020).

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for

respondent No.1 objected the petition and contended that

the statement of CWs.7 and 8 who are the land lords of

accused No.1 have clearly stated that accused No.1, 3 and

4 were residing together when there was a quarrel

between the family. The other accused also used to visit

the house of accused No.1 often and often and they

instigated accused No.1 for harassing the complainant.

They further stated that in the absence of the complainant,

there was some lady by name Niveditha was staying with

accused No.1 in his house and after seeing her toe ring

and hand full of bangles, they enquired with her, on

enquiry, she has stated that she got married with accused

No.1-Naveen Kumar. There is sufficient material placed on

record to frame the charges. On perusal of the statement

of the mother and sister i.e.,CWs.4 and 5, they have

categorically stated that all the accused persons were

harassing the victim and also arranged to perform the

marriage to accused No.1 and they have also demanded

the dowry. There is sufficient material to frame the

charges against them. Hence, prayed for dismissing the

petition.

6. Having heard the arguments on both the sides

and on perusal of the records, which reveals, of course,

accused No.1 have no parents, but he was residing along

with accused Nos.3 and 4 in the same roof. Admittedly,

accused Nos.2 and 5 who are the uncle and aunt of

accused No.1 and accused Nos.6 to 8 are the children of

the accused Nos.2 and 5. They were residing at Gandsi

Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District. As per the

statement of the complainant and her mother, the accused

Nos.2 and 5 came with a proposal of marriage with

accused No.1, they participated in the negotiation and in

their presence, the complainant has given the gold chain,

watch, ring, suit etc. to accused No.1. However, there is

no specific allegation made against the accused Nos.2, 5, 6

to 8, they are specifically demanded further additional

dowry after the marriage and they instigated accused No.1

in harassing the complainant. Of course, there is omnibus

allegation made against them that whenever accused

Nos.2 and 5 and their family members visit the house of

accused No.1, accused No.1 used to give money to them.

Therefore, the complainant objected for the same and the

other accused said to have been used accused No.1 as

puppet. Except these allegations, the blame is that

accused No.1 was lending money to them and was not

taking care of his children for their future. Therefore, there

was quarrel between accused No.1 and the complainant.

Admittedly, the main allegation goes against accused No.1

and accused Nos.3 and 4 who are the brother and sister-

in-law of accused No.1 who were residing together in the

house. Subsequently, it is also revealed that accused No.1

got married with one Niveditha as second marriage as per

the statement of CWs.7 and 8. But there is no evidence

on record to show that accused Nos.2, 5 and family

members were specifically participated in performing the

marriage. Of course, the allegation is that the said

Niveditha is said to be the relative of accused Nos.2 and 5,

but there is no material on record to show that they have

instigated and performed the marriage of accused No.1

with Niveditha. Therefore, merely, the blame is that

accused No.1 used to pay money to accused Nos.2 and 5

and used to look after their family members, that itself

does not constitute the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC. As per the statement of the complainant, accused

No.1 used to pay money to his uncle and aunt, therefore,

the complainant used to object for the same, hence, the

quarrel took place. Such being the case, accused Nos.2, 5

and their family members are robed in the case by the

complainant along with accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. But there

is sufficient material placed on record to show that accused

Nos.3 and 4 were residing along with accused No.1 and

they are participated in the commission of offence by

harassing the complainant, demanding dowry and also

involved in performing the second marriage. Of course,

accused No.1 is already said to be filed a divorce case

against the complainant which is pending. Such being the

case, I am of the view, there is no material placed on

record to frame the charges against accused Nos.2, 5 to 8,

but there is material placed on record to frame the charges

against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. Therefore, the learned

counsel also not pressing the petition of accused Nos.3 and

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the

view, the petition is required to be allowed in-part.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in-part.

The criminal proceedings against accused Nos.2 and

5 to 8 are hereby quashed. However, the trial court is

directed to frame the charges against accused Nos.1, 3

and 4 along with accused No.1 and proceed with the trial.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB