Subramanya S vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1258 Kant

                            1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6435 OF 2022
BETWEEN

1 . SUBRAMANYA S.
    S/O LATE NACHIMUTHU
    AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

2 . ARUKHANI
    W/O S SUBRAMANYA
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

   PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
   PRESENTLY R/AT GANESHAPURA
   HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
   NANJANGUD TALLUK
   MYSURU 571 315

3 . KRISHNAVENI C
    AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
    W/O M.S. CHANDRASEKAR
    MANGALURU,
    MANGALURU CITY,

4 . M.S CHANDRASEKAR
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
    S/O MANIKYA SWAMY
    MANGALURU
    MANGALURU CITY,

5 . RAKSHITHA C
    D/O M.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
    AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
                             2


   PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 5 ARE
   PRESENTLY R/AT 4-56 D
   SRI. DURGA KRUPA
   KODIBETTU, ANJARU
   UDUPI - 576 113

6 . MANOHAR
    S/O LATE RANGASWAMY
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
    PRESENTLY R/AT 237, GOPADI,
    KOTESHWARA
    KUNDAPUR
    UDUPI - 576 222

   ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
   MANGALURU,
   MANGALURU CITY.
                                    ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    MANGALURU WOMEN PS,
    REP BY SPP,
    HIGH COURT BUILDING,
    BENGALURU 560 001

2 . MRS. SHRUTHI C
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
    W/O GANESH KUMAR
    D/O CHANDRASHEKAR,
    R/AT DOOR NO. 5-32/40
    GROUND FLOOR,
    SRI. GANESH HOUSE,
    MAHALASA LAYOUT,
    BOLPUGUDDE,
    NEAR DIYA SYSTEMS
    KAVOOR,
    MANGALURU - 575 015
                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
                                3


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF   CR.P.C.  PRAYING    TO   QUASH    PROCEEDINGS   IN
C.C.NO.911/2022 PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN
CR.NO.34/2022 OF WOMEN P.S., MANGALURU PENDING ON
THE FILE OF III J.M.F.C. COURT, MANGALURU DISTRICT
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 323, 448, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.02.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

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

to 7 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings in C.C. No.911/2022 (in Crime No.34/22

registered by Mangaluru Women Police) pending on the file

of III JMFC Court, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 448, 506 read with Section 149

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent

No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of respondent No.2-Shruthi, on 14.3.2022, the

police registered a case. It is alleged in the complaint that

the complainant married to accused No.1 on 24.11.2016

and her father spent more than Rs.25.00 lakhs for the

purpose of marriage, Rs.2.50 lakhs was given to accused

No.1 as dowry by way of cash, 20 sovereign golden

ornaments were given at the time of marriage. Five

sovereign gold ornaments, out of which, two sovereign by

way of chain, two sovereign by way of bracelet and one

sovereign by way of finger ring, apart from suit, watch and

other materials worth of Rs.15.00 lakhs, paid to accused

No.1. Accused No.1 claimed to be the Assistant Manager

in MRPL company at Managaluru. After the marriage, both

accused No.1 and complainant lived together as husband

and wife. Subsequently, accused No. 4 used to visit

accused NO.1 and the complainant and used to instigate

accused NO.1 and pinpricked, thereby accused NO.1 was

quarreling with the complainant. Accused NO.3, the

mother of accused No.1 also used to blame the

complainant stating that she is dark in colour, her son

might have got huge dowry, if he married somebody.

Thereafter, the accused persons demanded additional

dowry from the complainant, they harassed her physically

and mentally. Accused Nos.3 and 4 always used to abet

accused No.1. However, the complainant did not file any

complaint in order to live peacefully. Subsequently,

accused No.1 said to be constructed a house at Golgudde

and thereafter, accused No.4, accused NO.5 and their

daughter accused NO.6 came and resided in the upper

floor of the house and once again, the quarrel started

troubling the complainant. Subsequently, accused No.1

demanded a site at Bengaluru, when the father of

complainant refused to give, they all harassed her

physically and mentally. Subsequently, accused No.7 who

is said to be brother-in-law of accused No.1 also

demanded the complainant to transfer the site measuring

60 x 40 ft. to the name of accused No.1 from the father of

the complainant as he is having a site at Bengaluru. After

registering FIR, the police investigated the matter and filed

charge sheet, which is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended

that accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately from

complainant and accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 to 6 were

staying in the upstairs of the building constructed by

accused No.1, but not along with this complainant and the

complainant was not cooperating with the accused.

Therefore, accused No.1 sent a legal notice on 21.11.2016

for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, both of them

joined together and lived for four / five years. Again the

complainant started troubling in-laws and thereafter, a

complaint was filed by her to the police but there is no

allegation against the accused persons in her complaint

dated 9.8.2021 and 29.8.2021. Thereafter, accused No.1

filed a divorce petition before the family Court. A notice

has been issued to respondent No.2-complainant and the

date of appearance was fixed by the family Court as on

15.3.2022, but a day prior to the date of appearance, the

present complaint came to be filed making several

allegations, but there is no specific allegation made

against any of these petitioners. Accused No.7 is far

relative of accused No.1 and hence, there is no allegation

against him. Therefore, continuing proceedings against

the petitioners is abuse of process of law. Hence prays for

quashing the proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

has seriously objected the petition and contended that

accused No.2 is father-in-law and accused No.3 is mother-

in-law of the complainant. Accused No.4 is sister-in-law of

the complainant and accused No.5 is husband of accused

NO.4 and accused No.6 is daughter of accused Nos.4 and

5. There is a specific allegation made against all the

accused persons in the complaint. There is a statement by

the parents of accused which reveals the demand and

acceptance of dowry. Accused Nos.4 to 6 came to reside

on the upstairs of the same building and started troubling

the complainant by making several allegations against

her. Accused No.6 used to take video graphs and photos

of complainant through window and making allegations

against the complainant to her maternal uncle i.e. accused

No.1 and because of accused No.6, most of quarrel took

place. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were previously residing in

some other place and purposefully, they came and stayed

in upstairs of the building where the complainant was

living and started to trouble her. Though accused Nos.2

and 3 were residing separately, but they often come and

quarrelling with complainant. Previously, accused Nos.2

and 3 were residing together with complainant and

accused No.1, and after some time, the accused No.1

constructed a separate house. Accused No.3 used to

blame the complainant as very dark in colour and she

might have got more dowry if accused No.1 married some

other lady. The accused persons demanded and accepted

the dowry articles. Therefore, the criminal proceedings

cannot be quashed against them. Hence prayed for

dismissing the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

perused the records, and also the judgment relied on by

the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. Perusal of the records reveal that as per the

complaint, the complainant's father has given Rs.2.50 lakh

cash as dowry to accused No.1, apart from 5 sovereign of

golden ornaments to accused No.1. All the accused

persons came to the house of the complainant and

demanded dowry articles and received by them.

Subsequently accused No.3 used to blame the complainant

that she is dark in colour and she is not fit to their family

and she might have got more dowry if accused No.1

married some other girl and the same was intimated to the

parents by the complainant, which reveals that there is

specific allegation against accused No.3.

8. Likewise, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sister and

brother-in-law of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the

daughter of accused Nos.4 and 5. Previously, they were

residing as opposite neighbours and started troubling the

complainant. In the year 2016, the complainant left

matrimonial home for delivery purpose. Thereafter, on

21.11.2016, accused No.1 issued a legal notice and the

complainant given reply on 1.12.2016 stating that she is

ready to join him. Subsequently, both of them joined and

resided together for more than four years. It is an

admitted fact that accused No.1 constructed a building

where the complainant and himself were residing in a

house. Subsequently, Accused Nos.4 to 6 also came and

stayed on the upstairs of the same building. Thereafter

once again, the accused persons started troubling the

complainant for one or the other reasons and abetting

accused No.1 to harass her.

9. Accused No.6 also used to watch the complainant

through window and take photographs, record audio and

give information to the accused No.1, 4 and 5. This was

also one of the reasons for troubling the complainant.

Therefore, it cannot be said that accused Nos.4 to 6 have

no role in harassing the complainant.

10. That apart, accused No.7, who is another

brother-in-law of accused No.1, started supporting accused

No.1 and demanding for transfer of site to the name of

accused No.1 where the father of complainant said to be

having a site at Bengaluru measuring 60 x 40 ft. The

accused persons always insisting the complainant to

transfer the site in the name of accused No.1 Therefore,

the contention of learned counsel for the accused that

there is no allegation against the accused No.7, cannot be

acceptable.

11. There is no subsequent allegation against

accused Nos.2 and 3 as they frequently used to visit the

house of accused No.1. Whenever accused No.3 come to

home, there were quarreling demanding additional dowry.

The complainant has not made all the allegations in the

complaint given to the police on 29.8.2021 and 9.8.2021

where she has requested the police to advise the accused

to lead marital life peacefully. Thereafter, the police called

the accused No.1 and advised him to lead happy marital

life where accused No.1 made some allegations against the

complainant and he undertook not to trouble the

complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed divorce

petition against the complainant. Even though she is

residing in the same building, accused No.1 joined and was

staying on the upstairs of his sister's house and started

troubling the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said

that accused Nos.4 to 6 have not abetted accused No.1 to

harass the complainant. However, after rejoining, the

complainant and accused No.1 started residing in the

ground floor and accused Nos.4 to 6 were staying on the

first floor of the same building and accused No.7 also

supported accused No.1 by demanding transfer of site

which was in the name of the father of complainant.

12. There is no further allegation against accused

Nos.2 and 3 where they were residing separately from the

house of accused No.1 and complainant. Though, in the

beginning, there was allegation against accused No.3, but

there was no allegation made against accused No.2.

However, accused No.3 mother-in-law always blamed the

complainant stating that she was dark in colour and

accused No.1 might have got more dowry if he would have

married some other lady, but there is no specific allegation

against accused No.2.

13. That apart, merely, accused No.1 filed a divorce

case and thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint

against accused-husband and in-laws for dowry

harassment, and that itself, is not a ground to quash the

criminal proceedings. The complainant has not lodged a

detail complaint against the accused persons in order to

reside with the accused No.1 in the matrimonial home.

Though accused No.1 undertook not to trouble her, but

thereafter, has filed the divorce case against her. It is

pertinent to note that both accused No.1 and complainant

were residing separately in the same building. Therefore,

it cannot be said that the accused persons have not

harassed the complainant. There is specific allegation

against each of the accused persons except accused No.2

and there is material placed on record to show that the

accused persons except accused No.2 involved in

committing the offence. Therefore continuing criminal

proceedings against accused No.2 is abuse of process of

law.

14. Accordingly, the criminal petition filed by

accused No.2- Subramanya S. is allowed.

Criminal Petition filed by accused No.3 to 7 is hereby

dismissed.

The criminal proceeding against accused No.2-

Subramanya S. in C.C. No.911/2022 (in Crime No.34/22

registered by Mangaluru Women Police) pending on the file

of III JMFC Court, Mangaluru, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs