Smt Jagadamba vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11970 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                       BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1268/2017

BETWEEN:

1 . SMT. JAGADAMBA
W/O THIMMARAYAPPA Y
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O No.97, II MAIN
4TH BLOCK, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA
BAKERY RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.

2 . SMT. SHARADA
W/O PRABHUJI
AGED 49 YEARS,
No.57, G. D PARK EXTENSION
OPP. T.T.D. KALYANA MANTAP
VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-560 003.

3 . SRI RAVINDRANATH
S/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY
AGE 65 YEARS, No.309 'SRI KRISHNA'
9TH CROSS, M .V. NAGAR
KOPPAGAL RAOD
BELLARY-583 103.                     ..PETITIONERS

(BY SRI K DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE-THROUGH V.C)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                              2


REPRESENTED BY WOMENS POLICE
STATION, ULSOOR GATE,
BANGALORE - 560 002.                       ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE     THE      ORDER    DATED:15.11.2017    IN
C.C.No.28827/2006, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,
506, 120B OF IPC, AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.

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

                         ORDER

Though this matter is listed today for Admission,

having regard to the facts and Circumstances of the

case, it is taken up for final disposal.

This petition is filed under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15-11-

2017 passed in CC No.28827/2006 by the learned VI

Additional CMM Bengaluru, wherein the application

filed by the accused Nos. 3 to 5 under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same

accused have presented this revision petition.

2. The complainant - Shobha is the wife of

accused No.1 and their relationship is not disputed.

The accused persons are the husband of the

complainant and his relatives.

3. It is the case of the complainant that she is

the native of Chittor in Andhra Pradesh and accused

Nos.1 to 4 are residents of Bengaluru and accused

No.5 is the resident of Bellary. It is further alleged

that accused No.1 was employed with BEL as an

Engineer. Further on 11-8-1997 engagement of

complainant was solemnized with accused No.1 at

Chittor. It is further alleged that accused demanded

dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs, 150 sovereign of gold

jewelries apart from clothes and other articles. It is

further stated that on 1-2-1998 as per the demands

made by accused family, their marriage was

performed at TTD Kalyana Mantap in Chittor, Andhra

Pradesh by spending Rs.5.00 lakhs. Their marriage

dissolved on 16-6-2005.

4. A private complaint was filed by the wife

Shobha against accused persons for the offence

punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC read

with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is

alleged that accused demanded dowry of Rs.10.00

lakh cash, 150 gms gold jewelries apart from clothes

and other articles. The complainant was happy in the

matrimonial house for a period of six months and

thereafter, accused started subjecting her to cruelty

and harassment both mental and physical. It is

contended that, complainant on several occasions

was confined in a room and not allowed to go

anywhere with her husband. On 2-2-1999 she was

thrown out of the house at Rajajinagar by the accused

persons demanding her to bring Rs.10.00 lakh from

her parents as additional dowry. Further the house

hold articles given to her were taken away by accused

No.5, to his house at Bellary. It is further alleged that

accused persons were given dowry of Rs.10.00 lakh in

two installments of Rs.5.00 lakhs each along with

other articles, cruelty and torture started because of

the failure of the complainant to bring additional

dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs. It is also stated that accused

No.1 filed divorce petition in MC No.1741/2001 and

the same was allowed as per the order dated 10-1-

2005 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge,

Family Court. It is stated to be an exparte decree.

5. It is stated that the present complaint was

filed during the pendency of the said divorce petition.

6. Accused claim that the complaint was filed

after the period of limitation. The prescribed

limitation under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of D.P.Act is 3 years. According to the

complainant after 7 years i.e. on 2-2-1999 accused

persons threw her out of house.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that

without there being any substance they are framed in

the case only as a mark of vengeance and anger of

the complainant. The petitioners are roped in the

case only for the reasons they are relatives to the

husband of the complainant. But the complainant has

filed the case with bias and prejudice against the

petitioners. They are absolutely innocent of the

allegations made against them. As there is no fault of

any kind by them and if they have to face trial, that

would have adverse impact over the respective

families.

8. Learned HCGP Smt. Rashmi Jadav submits

that the contention of bar of limitation is not

applicable to the case on hand, for the very reason

that accused persons were successful in preventing

the complainant from initiating proceedings and that

is evident from the series of panchayat, the family

talks that took place for 10 to 12 times. The

allegation regarding dowry is substantiated by the

circumstances. Further, not only accused No.1 and

his relatives who are accused in the case contradicted

their participation and encouragement to see other

incumbent of the offences whether cruelty or demand

for dowry.

9. It was also submitted that there was no

necessity for the complainant to make false complaint

keeping her carrier at stake.

10. The marriage between the complainant and

accused No.1 is stated to have been solemnized as

per hindu rights and formalities on 1.2.1998 preceded

by engagement on 11-8-1997 at Chittor. As per the

demand made by accused persons, engagement was

performed by spending Rs.1.50,000/- and an amount

of Rs.10 lakh was paid as dowry along with 150

grams of gold ornaments, Rs.1,00,000/- in cash for

purchase of clothes, and gold bracelet and gold ring

were given. The marriage was performed at TTD

Kalyana Mantapa,Chittor by spending Rs.5,00,000/-.

In the matrimonial house after six months life of the

complainant become miserable, being aggravated by

the demand for additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakh. In

terms of relationship between the other accused is as

under:

Accused No.1 - Y. Murulidhara s/o.Thimmarayappa, 32 years;

Accused No.2- Y. Thimmarayappa, 64 years;

father of accused No.1;

Accused No.3- Jagadamba w/o Thimmarayappa, 58 years, mother of accused No.1

Accused No.4- Sharadha d/o. Y. Thimarayappa, sister of accused No.1;

Accused No.5-Ravi Kumar, maternal uncle of accused No.1.

to 5 are petitioners herein.

11. According to the complaint, accused No.4

who is the sister-in-law of complainant. Accused

started harassment physically and mentally

demanding the complainant to bring Rs.10.00 lakh or

otherwise they are going to perform second marriage

of accused No.1. It is stated that during her stay in

the house, complainant has not allowed to stay along

with her husband even in her bedroom. She was not

given proper food, she was confined to room and she

was not allowed to go anywhere with the accused

No.1.

12. It is further stated that parents, brothers

and other family members and also well wishers and

elders convened several panchayat, but it is of no

avail.

13. The complainant also has grievance that the

accused persons are making hectic arrangements for

second marriage of accused No.1

14. Here it is necessary to mention Section

498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, which

read as under:

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to

life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.--1[

(1) ] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: --1[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]\:" Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 4[five years].] 5[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,-- 1[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,--"

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list

maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.]

Section 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

1[4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: 2[4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees\:" Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the

judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

15. The courts proceeds with presumption that

material brought on record by prosecution proved

and establish the ingredients of the offence. This

principle is recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the decision reported in AIR 2018 SC 81 (State

by the Inspector of Police,Chennai Vs. S. SELVI

and another)

16. In order to frame charge there is no

necessity of detailed cross- examination of all the

papers of the prosecution with threadbare bifurcation.

It is also to be noted that when two views are possible

one is based on the suspicion only as distinguished

from grave suspicion. The judge is empowered to

discharge the accused and not to see whether the trial

ends in conviction or acquittal. In this connection,

learned trial judge is not a mere post office from

mechanically posting the case to hear before charge

under Section 227 or 239 of Cr.P.C., as the case may

be but the question is, complainant has to spell out

the ingredients constituting offence. In case of

marriage, lady will be a new member to the family

and as such she has to get herself acquainted with the

husband and even with other relatives including,

parents, siblings of her husband, their spouses and

small ones. The marriage cannot be a platform either

to pose cruelty for sadistic pressure or blackmailing

by the parties.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the accused

relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan lal reported in

1992 Suppp.(1) SCC 335 and followed in 2008 SAR

(Criminal) 303.

18. Unless there is grave suspicion that comes

to the mind regarding the conduct of the accused on

the alleged offence in the case, the matter cannot be

proceeded with mechanical approach.

19. The above principles are recognized in the

decisions reported in 2008 (10) SCC 394 (Yogesh @

Sachin Jagadish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra) and

AIR 2010 SC 663 (P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and

another).

20. The sufferings of the complainant when first

reveated by the circumstances or the documents or

the injuries on the personality or the personality of the

victim. The principles considered is, beyond the every

offence there is an offender. Absence of an eye

witness cannot itself absolve the offence. Still

ingredients of the offence are to be borne in mind to

assess whether they are present prima facie to

constitute the offence to proceed against the accused.

Joint family is not a battle field for the members of the

family to settle score against each other. The

complainant says that dowry of Rs.10.00 lakh was

given by her parents to the accused on the demand

of the latter along with jewelries clothes and gold of

150 grams at the time of marriage. The complaint

was filed on 22-1-2006 and the claim of the

complainant is that, she was driven out from the

house on 22.2.1999 and as such nearly 7 years lapsed

and the complainant decided to lodge the complaint.

In this connection, learned HCGP submits that there

were series of pancayaths preceded by elders and

family people to bring order in the family, but failed.

21. In this connection, after the offence

according to the complainant committed, she waited

for pancayath and settlement in this connection,

intention behind the said allegation is nothing but

suspicion. Moreover, considering the allegations made

by the complainant and after 7 years filing complaint

and also alleged that she was threatened that in case

of non payment of dowry they would arrange second

marriage to the accused no.1 with the daughter of

accused No.5. Accused No.5 is stated to be the

maternal uncle of accused No.1 and even without

mentioning the circumstances he has arraigned as

accused. Moreover, the relationship stated above are

made a list and complaint is almost contains omnibus

allegations. The sufferings of the complainant or the

circumstances as stated in the complaint at the end

shows the anger of the complainant than the

ingredients. Time and again, it is held that there

cannot be either exploitation from the husband's side

nor blackmailing tendency from the wife's side.

22. The prosecution papers do not disclose

materials for trying the accused petitioners for further

Trail.

23. In this case, it appears that the

complainant adopted mechanical approach and has

listed accused persons 3 to 5 who are the mother,

married sister and maternal uncle of the accused

No.1. There cannot be a trial of a person in a criminal

case as it is baseless allegation may influence the

normal members or the relatives of the husband to

land in misery and irritating feeling, more

particularly, it will not result in balance and harmony

in the family. In the over all circumstances of the

case, I find that the petitioners 1 to 3 who are

mother, sister and maternal uncle of accused No.1 are

not liable to face the trial and they are entitled to be

discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

24. For the foregoing reasons, the revision

petition is allowed

The impugned order passed by the learned trial

judge on 15-11-2017 in CC No.28827/2006 is set

aside and modified by discharging the petitioner Nos.

1 to 3 who are mother, sister and maternal uncle of

the accused No.1 from the offence punishable under

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

D.P.Act.

Sd/-

JUDGE

tsn*