Karnataka High Court
Smt. V Latha vs State Of Karnataka By on 21 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Bysvsj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO. 1019 OF 2018
C/W
CRL.R.P. NO. 1020 OF 2018
IN CRL.R.P.NO.1019/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT. V LATHA
W/O V. ARVIND KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, DOOR NO.301
3RD FLOOR, 7TH MAIN
DATTATHREYA NAGAR
HOSAKEREHALLI
Digitally signed BANGALORE - 25.
by B A KRISHNA
KUMAR ...PETITIONER
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI KALYAN R., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE
BENGALURU, REP BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE - 01.
2. SMT. ASHWINI
W/O AVINASH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
3. SRI AVINASH
S/O NAGARAJ GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT NO.418, BEML LAYOUT
MYLASANDARA
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
(BY SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-2;
SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2018, IN
CRL.RP.NO.904/2017, PASSED BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, (CCH-72).
IN CRL.R.P.NO.1020/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT. V LATHA
W/O V. ARVIND KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, DOOR NO.301
3RD FLOOR, 7TH MAIN
DATTATHREYA NAGAR
HOSAKEREHALLI
BANGALORE - 25.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KALYAN R., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE
BENGALURU, REP BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE - 01.
2. SMT. SHARADHA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
3. SRI VENKATESH
S/O LATE DODDA HIYDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT NO.418, BEML LAYOUT
MYLASANDARA
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-2;
SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1)
-3-
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2018, IN
CRL.RP.NO.903/2017, PASSED BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two criminal revision petitions are filed by the
complainant challenging the common order dated 11.09.2018
passed by the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-72) in Criminal Revision Petition
Nos.903/2017 & 904/2017, wherein the order dated
08.11.2017 passed by the learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.29760/2015 was set aside
and the application filed by the respondents herein under
Section 239 Cr.PC seeking discharge was allowed.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records
that would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these
two petitions are, the petitioner herein had lodged a complaint
on 03.05.2015 against her husband (accused no.1) and in the
said complaint, she had also arrayed her father-in-law, mother-
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
in-law, sister-in-law and the husband of the sister-in-law as
accused nos.2 to 5. In the said case, the police after
investigation had filed charge sheet against all the accused and
the case was registered in C.C.No.29760/2015. Accused nos.2
to 5 had filed application under Section 239 Cr.PC seeking their
discharge in the said case. The said application was rejected by
the learned Magistrate on 08.11.2017. Being aggrieved by the
said order, accused nos.2 & 3 had filed Crl.Rev.Petition
No.903/2017 and accused nos.4 & 5 had filed Crl.Rev.Petition
No.904/2017 before the Revisional Court. The Revisional
Court by a common order dated 11.09.2018 has allowed the
aforesaid two revision petitions and consequently, accused
nos.2 to 5 were discharged in C.C.No.29760/2015 which was
pending before the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Challenging the said order dated 11.09.2018,
the complainant has preferred these two revision petitions.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Sessions Judge was not justified in discharging the
respondents herein of the alleged offences. He submits that
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
there are more than sufficient material to show that accused
nos.2 to 5 were also actively involved in committing the alleged
crime and the averments and allegations made in the complaint
specifically narrates the participation of the said accused in
committing the alleged crime. He submits that the Revisional
Court has not even referred to the order passed by the learned
Magistrate, while allowing the revision petitions. He also
submits that while considering the discharge application, the
Court is required to only appreciate the charge sheet material
and in the present case, the charge sheet makes out a prima
facie case even against accused nos.2 to 5, and therefore, the
Revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the order
passed by the learned Magistrate. In support of his contention,
he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENNAI VS S.SELVI & ANOTHER - AIR 2018 SC 81.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the perusal of the complaint
averments would go to show that the complainant and accused
no.1 were residing separately in a rented premises ever since
the month of October 2013. He submits that the complaint has
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
been filed after accused no.1 had initiated divorce proceedings
against the complainant. He submits that accused nos.2 to 5
who are the close relatives of accused no.1 are residing
separately and only with an intention to harass and coerce the
family members of accused no.1, they have all been falsely
implicated by the petitioner. He submits that the Revisional
Court has properly appreciated this aspect of the matter and
has rightly allowed the revision petitions. In support of his
contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM &
ORS. VS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. - (2022)1 SCR 558,
GIRDHAR SHANKAR TAWADE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA -
(2002)5 SCC 177.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed
on both sides and also perused the material available on
record.
7. The petitioner has lodged a typed complaint before the
Basavanagudi Police Station on 03.05.2015, based on which,
FIR was registered in Crime No.42/2015, wherein the
respondents herein have been arrayed as accused nos.2 to 5.
The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet in the
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
said case even against accused nos.2 to 5. In the complaint
itself, the petitioner has mentioned that she is the resident of
Dattatreya Nagar, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru-85, whereas the
address of the accused persons is shown as No.418, BEML
Layout, Mailasandra, Bengaluru City.
8. From the reading of the complaint, it is evident that
the petitioner and her husband were married on 02.06.2013
and they stayed in their in-laws house at Mailasandra,
Bengaluru, only for a short period of about 3 to 4 months.
Thereafter, the couple started residing separately in a rented
house at 7th Main, Hoysala Circle, Subhashnagar, Kengeri
Satellite Town, Bengaluru, and subsequently, they had shifted
to a rented house at No.301, 7th Main, Dattatreyanagar,
Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru-85. From the reading of the complaint
averments, it is clear that the petitioner and her husband
(accused no.1) had started residing separately ever since the
month of October 2013. In the complaint, it is also stated that
accused no.1 assaulted the petitioner on 12.03.2015 and left
the house, and thereafter he had not returned. The complaint
has been lodged subsequently in the month of May 2015, which
is after a delay of nearby two months.
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
9. Learned Counsel for the respondents herein has also
produced material before this Court to show that a divorce
petition was filed by accused no.1 against the petitioner herein
on 09.04.2015 which was numbered as M.C.No.1591/2015
before the Court of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, and in
the said proceedings, notice was issued to the petitioner on
10.04.2015 and the said notice was dispatched through RPAD
on 13.04.2015. This material would go to show that the
petitioner had lodged the police complaint after initiation of
divorce proceedings by her husband (accused no.1).
10. The material on record, more so, the averments
made in the complaint itself would go to show that the
petitioner and her husband (accused no.1) were staying
separately ever since the month of October 2013 and they so
stayed together till 12.03.2015. The address of accused nos.2
to 5 disclose that they are the residents of BEML Layout,
Mailasandra, Bengaluru, and therefore, it is evident that
accused nos.2 to 5 are staying separately.
11. The attempt to rope in the near relatives of the
husband in a criminal case initiated by the wife has been
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER VS STATE OF JHARKHAND &
ANOTHER - (2010)7 SCC 667, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that most of the complaints under Section 498-A
IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations and we come across a large
number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and
are filed with oblique motive. In the said case, it has been also
observed that the tendency of implicating the husband and all
his immediate relatives is also not uncommon and the
allegations of harassment of husband's close relatives who have
been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited
the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely
different complexion, and therefore, the allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam's case supra, after referring to the judgment in Preethi
Gupta's case supra and several other judgments of its, wherein
the very same principle has been reiterated, has held that in
the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused who
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
are the near relatives of the husband, they cannot be forced to
go through the tribulations of trial. General and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of
the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial and in
cases of such nature, proceedings against the relatives is liable
to be quashed.
13. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @ NOOR
ASMA & OTHERS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER -
2020(6) Kar.L.J. 90, at paragraphs 15 & 17 has observed as
under:
"15. In the case on hand, a careful reading of
the complaint averments and the charge sheet
materials clearly go to show that an attempt is made
to implicate all the immediate relatives of the husband
with an oblique motive. No specific averments are
made as against the petitioners with regard to their
role played in respect of the alleged acts. No reference
is given with regard to any specific incidents wherein
the petitioners have actively participated. The
complainant has only made sweeping allegations
against petitioners. xxx xxx
16. xxx xxx
17. The learned Magistrates while taking
cognizance of the criminal offences arising out of
marriage dispute are required to be cautious especially
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
when an attempt is made to falsely implicate the
relatives of the husband without even there being any
specific allegation as against them in the complaint
only with an intention to coerce and harass the
husband and his relatives. The provisions of law
introduced by the legislature for protecting the weaker
section should be used as a shield and not as a
weapon. The judiciary in cases of misuse of such
provisions of law, is required to intervene, otherwise, it
may have an adverse effect in a longer run."
14. In the background of the law laid down in the
aforesaid judgments, if the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge in the revision petitions is tested, I do not find
any illegality or irregularity in the said order. The learned
Sessions Judge, having appreciated the charge sheet material
has given a categorical finding that the allegations made in the
complaint against accused nos.2 to 5 are bald in nature and
there are no specific overt acts alleged against them. In
addition to the same, the material on record would also go to
show that accused nos.2 to 5 are residing separately in
different places and the criminal complaint has been lodged by
the petitioner belatedly after her husband (accused no.1) had
initiated divorce proceedings against her.
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 1019 of 2018
& Another
15. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view
that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in allowing
the criminal revision petitions and discharging the
respondents/accused nos.2 to 5. I, therefore, find no merit in
these criminal revision petitions. Accordingly, the same are
dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
KK
