Karnataka High Court
Sri Anup Ishanna Sonnad vs State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 W.P.NO.101614/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
WRIT PETITION No. 101614/2022(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ANUP ISHANNA SONNAD,
S/O ISHANNA SONNAD,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
2. SRI ISHANNA SONNAD,
S/O BASAVANNEPPA SONNAD,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
3. SMT. SIDDAMMA SONNAD,
W/O ISHANNA SONNAD,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
ALL OF THEM ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF:
# 999, 1ST PHASE, 1ST MAIN,
Digitally signed
by SUJATA
SUBHASH
IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP,
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
RAJARAJESJWARI NAGAR,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENGALURU - 560 098.
ALL OF THEM ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
# 1717 VERDANA DR. AUSTIN, TX 78753,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)
2 W.P.NO.101614/2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KOPPAL WOMEN'S
POLICE STATION, BANIKATTI,
KOPPAL - 583 321.
REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
2. SMT. VIJAITA BALLOLLI,
W/O ANUP ISHANNA SONNAD,
D/O BASAVARAJ BALLOLI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H NO. 1 - 5 - 420,
KATARAKI ROAD,
BALLOLLI COMPOUND,
KOPPAL - 583 231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING
THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 22.02.2022 IN
CR.NO.011/2022 (ANNUEXURE - A AND B) REGISTERED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 20.03.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3 W.P.NO.101614/2022
ORDER
1. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused
Nos.1 to 3 have filed this writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India read with Section 482
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the FIR and complaint dated 22.02.2022 in
Crime No.11/2022 registered with respondent No.1, on
the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2.
2. Petitioners have contended that respondent
No.1 has registered the case without proper application
of mind and non-consideration of the statements made
in the complaint which are false. In the absence of
specific allegations against the petitioners, respondent
No.1-police have erred in registering the case.
Respondent No.1-police have not followed the guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar and another1.
(2014) 8 SCC 273
4 W.P.NO.101614/2022
3. The respondent No.1 has not considered the
fact that the allegations made in the complaint does not
attract provisions of Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The
respondent No.1-police have erred in not appreciating
the fact that on the alleged date of incident, petitioners
were not physically present at Koppal. Without
conducting preliminary enquiry, the respondent No.1-
police have erred in registering the case. Having regard
to the fact that the marriage between petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 is dissolved by the Family Court at
Austin, USA, the allegations made in the complaint are
false, frivolous and with a view to victimize the
petitioners.
4. In fact vide message/e-mail dated
28.02.2022, respondent No.2 has informed petitioner
No.1 that she would be returning to USA to complete the
formalities in respect of final decree of divorce. When
5 W.P.NO.101614/2022
the alleged harassment took place at USA, respondent
No.1 has no jurisdiction to register the case and proceed
against the petitioners. Only to harass the petitioners,
complaint is filed and prays to allow the petition.
5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners have relied upon the following
judgments:
i. Gian Singh Vs.State of Punjab and
another (Gian Singh case)2
ii. State of Orissa Vs.Debendra Nath
Padhi3
iii. Y.Narasimha Rao & others
Vs.Y.Venkata Lakshmi & others
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader
representing respondent No.1 and the learned counsel
representing respondent No.2 submitted that based on
the complaint, case is registered and investigation is
taken up. The allegations made in the complaint
(2012) 10 SCC 303
AIR 2005 SC 359
(1191) 3 SCC 451
6 W.P.NO.101614/2022
requires thorough investigation and prays to reject the
petition.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the
records.
8. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of
petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, respondent
No.2 is the ex-wife of petitioner No.1.
9. On 22.02.2022, respondent No.2 has filed
complaint alleging that her marriage with petitioner No.1
was solemnized on 12.02.2020 at Koppal. At the time of
marriage, petitioners demanded and received 50 tolas of
gold, 5 kgs of silver and Rs.50 lakhs in cash. Her
harassment started immediately on the next day of the
marriage- for on 13.02.2020 i.e., on the next date of her
marriage, the marriage of her brother was solemnized.
However, petitioner No.1 did not allow her to attend the
said marriage and took her to Bengaluru. On the 3rd day
of marriage i.e., on 14.02.2020, all the petitioners
7 W.P.NO.101614/2022
started harassing her saying that dowry paid is not
sufficient and demanded additional dowry in the form of
20 tolas of gold and Rs.20 lakhs in cash.
10. In the complaint, it is further stated that on
28.02.2020 i.e., within a period of 16 days from the
date of her marriage, she left for USA along with
petitioner No.1, but petitioners No.2 and 3 remained at
Bengaluru. She alleges that though they were staying at
Bengaluru, they used to make phone calls to her and
demand additional dowry and in fact through her father
she came to know that her family members and well
wishers advised petitioners No.2 and 3. Again she states
that on 21.11.2021 at 12 noon, petitioners No.2 and 3
visited the house of her father at Koppal and reiterated
their demand for additional dowry and gave threat.
Ultimately, on 18.02.2022 she came back to Koppal and
on 22.02.2022 she filed the complaint alleging the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and
8 W.P.NO.101614/2022
506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
11. However, during the course of arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that each
and every allegations are false. In fact photographs
produced by the petitioners goes to show that
respondent No.2 and petitioners attended the marriage
of the brother of respondent No.2 and he arranged for a
cake cutting ceremony for the parents of respondent
No.2. Adverting the notice of the Court at the
documents produced by the petitioners, learned counsel
representing them submitted that at the instance of
petitioner No.1, a divorce petition was filed by him
wherein a temporary order is passed directing the
petitioner No.1 to pay a sum of $2690.76 per month
towards temporary spouses support and also $1200 to
cover the security deposit of her new apartment and
$500 towards moving expenses and thereby respondent
No.2 started living in a separate house at USA.
9 W.P.NO.101614/2022
Mediation proceedings were held and a settlement was
arrived at on 01.04.2022. Ultimately a final decree of
divorce was drawn on 02.09.2022.
12. In fact during her cross examination, a
specific question was put to respondent No.2 as to
whether petitioner No.1 at any point of time physically
abused her, for which she has answered in the negative.
Throughout, respondent No.2 has not made any
allegations whatsoever against petitioners No.1 to 3.
She has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Family Court
at USA and agreed for a decree of divorce. The decree of
divorce also contains details of gold ornaments which
were taken by respondent No.2 with her. It also refers
to some ornaments which respondent No.2 claims to be
with petitioner No.1, however he has disputed the said
fact but agreed to return them if he ultimately finds
them in his residence.
10 W.P.NO.101614/2022
13. It appears that after returning from USA, the
respondent No.2 has chosen to file a complaint for the
first time alleging that there was dowry demand and
harassment for not fulfilling the alleged demand. Very
conveniently in the complaint, she has not disclosed the
fact that divorce proceedings were moved in USA and
ultimately orders were passed and the benefit she has
obtained through the said order. Ultimately at no point
of time respondent No.2 has stayed with petitioners
No.2 and 3. Within a period of 14 days of marriage, she
has left for USA. The only allegation against petitioners
No.2 and 3 is that they used to make telephonic calls
and demand dowry.
14. When respondent No.2 had the opportunity of
contesting the divorce proceedings initiated before the
Family Court, USA, if there was any such demand for
dowry and harassment, she could have disclosed the
said fact to the American Court and lodged the
complaint. The conduct of respondent No.2 silently
11 W.P.NO.101614/2022
getting divorce and benefits arising out of it and leaving
USA, coming back to India and filing the complaint
without disclosing the proceedings held at the Family
Court, USA indicate that, only to harass the petitioners,
she has chosen to file such a complaint and also sent an
intimation to the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India against the petitioners more
particularly about petitioner No.1 who is working at USA.
The endorsement made on the said complaint goes to
show that her petition was closed as petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 have arrived at a settlement. Having
regard to these aspects, certainly the continuation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioners would
amount to abuse of process of the Court.
15. For the above reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed
and accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
12 W.P.NO.101614/2022
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
The FIR and complaint dated 22.02.2022
in Crime No.11/2022 registered by respondent
No.1 is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the matter, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed of
accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
kgk
CT-AK/
