Channabasappa S/O Bhadrappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1282 Kant

                                              -1-

                                                     CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201157 OF 2022
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.    SRI. CHANNABASAPPA
                         S/O BHADRAPPA ANGADI @ PATIL
                         AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                         OCCU: GOVT. SCHOOL TEACHER,
                         R/O NAREBENCHI TQ. MUDDEBHIHAL,
                         DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 212
                   2.    SRI. KISHOR @ VIRESH
                         S/O CHANNABASAPPA ANGADI @ PATIL
                         AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                         OCCU:PRIVATE WORK,
                         R/O NAREBENCHI T
                         Q. MUDDEBHIHAL,
                         DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 212
                   3.    KUM VEENASHIRI
                         D/O CHANNABASAPPA ANGADI @ PATIL
Digitally signed         AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCU: STUDENT
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR                 R/O NAREBENCHI TQ. MUDDEBHIHAL,
Location: High           DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 212
Court of
Karnataka                                                      ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                         THROUGH VIJAYAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION,
                         REP BY ADDL. SPP
                         HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                         KALABURAGI BENCH
                         DIST: KALABURAGI 585103
                                  -2-

                                        CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022




 2.   SMT. PAVITRA @ SANGAMMA
      W/O CHANNABASAPPA ANGADI @ PATIL
      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O NAREBENCHI TQ: MUDDEBHIHAL,
      NOW AT: NIDAGUNDI TQ: NIDAGUNDI
      DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 213
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
 (BY SRI.GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. NAGARAJ
 PATIL FOR R2, ADVOCATE)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
 ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN
 C.C.NO.13717/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL
 JUDGE AND JMFC, AT VIJAYAPUR REGISTERED ON THE
 CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE,
 BASED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
 FOR THE ALLEGED CRIME NO.51/2021 OF VIJAYAPUR TOWN
 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498 (A)
 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY
 PROHIBITION ACT, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
 THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with

the following prayer:

" Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court to allow the petition and quash proceedings in CC No.13717/2021 pending on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, at Vijayapur registered on the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1 Police, based on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 for the alleged Crime No.51/2021, Vijayapur Women Police Station for

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

the offence punishable under Section 498A and 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the ends of justice."

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Amargundappa, learned

counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the first

respondent-State and Sri Nagaraj Patil, learned counsel for

respondent No.2/complainant and perused the records.

3. After hearing for some time, learned counsel for the

petitioners has filed a Memo seeking permission to withdraw

the petition filed against Accused No.1/petitioner No.1. Memo

is placed on record and the same reads as under:

"That upon instructions secured from the petitioner No.1 to the effect that, he is not willing to proceed with the above petition, as such he may be permitted to withdraw the petition in so far as it concern to the petitioner No.1.

Hence, this Memo."

4. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for

disposal of the petition are as under:

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

Smt. Pavitra @ Sangamma @ Patil, initially filed a written

complaint on 3.1.2021 before the Hungunda Police, which was

registered in Crime No.6/2021 for the offence punishable under

Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners herein.

5. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that first

petitioner Channabasappa S/o. Bhadrappa Angadi @ Patil is the

father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3. Complainant married the first

petitioner. Thereafter, all the accused persons started

harassing the complainant by saying that the complainant is

not good looking and she does not know how to manage the

house hold work and she did not bring proper dowry amount

and did not give the car and demanded for car and additional

gold and sought for action against the accused/petitioners.

6. The police after registering the case found that the

alleged crime is within the jurisdiction of Vijayapur Police and

transferred the Crime No.6/2021 to the Vijayapura Women

Police, who registered a case and after investigation, filed the

charge sheet.

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

7. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

offence and is proceeding with the criminal case against the

accused/petitioners. The said action is challenged on the

following grounds:

"The registration of crime against the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 by the respondent No. 1 police based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to abuse of process of law and court. Therefore the same calls for interference of this Hon'ble court to pass orders quashing the said proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

As regards the allegation regarding assault, demand of dowry and conveying panchayat, it is relevant to note that the said allegations are quite vague and wild in nature in as much as neither the particular dates on which the incident took place are disclosed nor the demand of dowry. In all sweeping and casual allegations are made against the petitioners in the complaint.

The allegations leveled against the petitioners are common and omnibus one. That no specific overacts are attributed against the petitioners. In support of this contention it is worth

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

full to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein, the parameters on which the indulgence can be shown for exercising powers available under Section 482 of 'the Code' with respect to matrimonial matters have been laid down by the Apex in the following manner :

20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

It is submitted that, a perusal of entire charge sheet materials, particularly the statements of charge sheet witnesses and their addresses

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

would clearly reveal the fact that, no statements of neighbors of the matrimonial house, where the petitioners and respondent No.2 led marital life/domestic relationship i.e., neither Vijayapura nor Nerebenchi village are recorded by the IO, this omission to record the statements of persons neighboring, who are acquainted with the facts certainly goes to prove that, no such incident of assault, demand of dowry & harassment as alleged in the complaint has taken place. On this ground alone the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

The second respondent-de facto complainant implicated all the family members, only some general and sweeping allegations. The petitioner No.1 is husband and who is government school teacher the petitioner No.2 & 3 are the son and daughter of the petitioner No.2, through the first wife, who are students. On account of false criminal case the petitioner's future career is at stake. The petitioner No.2 & 3 having completed their graduation is about to secure government job and in view of aforesaid crime they are under reasonable apprehension of being deprived of said government job. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and ultimately it would result in miscarriage of justice causing undue hardship and agony to the petitioners.

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

That, on intervention of the elders, relatives and well wishers, have settled the issue and in furtherance of the same petitioners as well respondent No.2 decided to live together happily, by forgoing the past incident and by restoring marital obligations. in view of issue being resolved; wife does not want to prosecute the case against petitioners and that being the fact it would be futile exercise in conducting trial in C.C.No. 13717/2021, pending on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Vijayapura, as the respondent No.2 herein is intending not to prosecute the case, as such in all probabilities the same would end in acquittal. The petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 having appeared before the trial court have settled the matter by filing compromise petition and thereby the respondent No.2 herein has withdrew her petition filed under DV act and also she intends to compromise the issue in the present case. Therefore since the controversy resolves around the family issue, which is resolved now and the commission of offences alleged being not against society, in the interest of both the parties & to protect the marriage institution, entire proceedings are liable to be quashed to secure ends of justice.

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

In K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 it was also observed that:--

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP, it was observed:- "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.

The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that courts have at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

section 498A 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.

A three judge Bench of Supreme court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others AIR 2008 SC 251 has examined scope and ambit of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court in the said case observed that inherent powers under section 482 should be exercised for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers of the court.

That even if the allegations made in the complaint is taken as true the same will not

- 11 -

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

constitute the offences alleged. Therefore to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure ends of justice proceedings are to be quashed initiated against the petitioners.

That even if it is assumed that the alleged allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or collected by the prosecution therefore; manifestly the prosecution fails to prove the same. Under these circumstances to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

That in view of compromise petition filed before the trial court in proceedings initiated under DV act., recording compromise in the present proceedings also, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence on merits as well on account of compromise the proceedings under challenge is liable to be quashed.

Viewed from any angle, proceedings initiated is not only unfair and unjust, but also is not proper use of the process of law and hence the proceedings is liable to be quashed."

- 12 -

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition Sri

Arun kumar Amaragundappa, vehemently contended that

petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the children born to the first petitioner

through his first wife Shanthamma @ Gayathri, who is no more.

He further contended that after the death of Shanthamma, first

petitioner married the complainant and thereafter, they were

living a happy married life.

9. It is further contended that the petitioners 2 & 3 are

not having any role in the alleged ill-treatment and therefore,

sought for quashing of the further proceedings.

10. Per contra, Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, lhc.. for first

respondent and Sri Nagaraj Patil, learned counsel for the

second respondent contended that the investigating agency has

collected sufficient materials to rope in the petitioner Nos.2 & 3

also in the incident and this court having regard to the scope of

Section 482 of Cr.PC, cannot hold a mini trial to find out

whether at all petitioner Nos.2 & 3 had a role in the alleged

harassment by holding mini trial and sought for dismissal of the

petition.

- 13 -

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

11. He also contended that the investigating agency has

prima facie collected the material which would establish the

nexus between the alleged harassment imparted to the

complainant and the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 and sought for

dismissal of the petition.

12. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this

court perused the materials on record meticulously. On such

perusal of the material on record, it is seen that petitioner No.2

is the son who is aged about 29 years and petitioner No.3 is the

daughter who is aged about 23 years; both petitioner Nos.2 & 3

were born through first wife Shanthamma and first petitioner

Channabasappa. After the death of Shanthamma, the first

petitioner married the complainant/2nd respondent on 8.4.2006.

It is also found from the records that after the death of

Shanthamma, first petitioner married one Nandini @ Renuka

and there is a matrimonial proceedings pending and

suppressing the said marriage, the first petitioner said to have

married other 3-4 persons including the complainant and

therefore, sought for action against the first petitioner.

- 14 -

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

13. Police investigated the matter and filed charge

sheet. However, from the charge sheet materials, there is no

specific allegations so far as petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are concerned

as to how, they have contributed in the alleged physical and

mental harassment to the complainant in the case on hand.

The allegations are vague in nature in the form of charge sheet

witnesses.

14. If the first petitioner has married number of persons

including the complainant, how does the second and third

petitioners, who are majors are responsible for the same is a

question that has to be looked into in the case. Admittedly,

these two petitioners being the children of the first wife

Shanthamma @ Savithri had no role in whatsoever in the first

petitioner marrying number of persons.

15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also

taking note of the fact that in a matter of this nature, un-

necessarily, the relatives of the husband are being roped in,

this court is of the considered opinion that further proceedings

as against the accused/petitioner Nos.2 & 3 in the pending

criminal case needs to be terminated by quashing the charge

sheet filed against the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 by exercising power

- 15 -

CRL.P No. 201157 of 2022

under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, following order is

passed:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The petition against the first petitioner is dismissed in view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the first petitioner.

(iii) Petition against petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is allowed and the pending proceedings in CC No.13717/2021 pending on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Vijayapura, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are concerned.

(iv) The observations made by this court in this order shall not affect the rights of the parties during trial.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*