Lalit Mundra vs Smt Ruchi Maheshwari
2023 Latest Caselaw 1060 Kant

                             1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6712 OF 2022
                   CONNECTED WITH
           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6540 OF 2022

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6712 OF 2022

BETWEEN

1 . LALIT MUNDRA
    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
    S/O SRI SHIV RATAN MUNDRA,
    R/AT NO.377, FLAT NO.205,
    ANAND CASTLE APARTMENT,
    OLD ASTC HUDCO,
    HOSUR-635109

2 . SRI SHIV RATAN MUNDRA
    AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
    S/O LATE GULAB CHAND MUNDRA,

3 . SMT SARITA MUNDRA
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
    W/O SRI SHIV RATAN MUNDRA,

4 . SMT NIDHI MUNDRA
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
    D/O SHIV RATAN MUNDRA,

5 . SRI MADHAV
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
    S/O SRI SHIV RATAN MUNDRA,
                               2


     PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 ARE
     R/AT UPAHARA BOHARA COLONY,
     KEKRI TALUK,
     AJMER DISTRICT,
     RAJASTHAN STATE-305404
                                             ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MRC MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

SMT RUCHI MAHESHWARI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O LALIT MUNDRA,
R/AT NO.C.062
SHOBA MANGALIA APARTMENTS,
OPP JAL BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560029
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.88/2019 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT UNDER SECTIONS
12, 18, 19, 20(3) AND 22 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005 NOW THE CASE IS
PENDING    ON   THE   FILES   OF   HONBLE    METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT VI BENGALURU.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6540 OF 2022

BETWEEN

1.    SRI. SHIVARATHAN MUNDRA
      AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
      S/O LATE GULABCHAND MUNDRA
                             3


2.   SMT SARITHA MUNDRA
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
     W/O SHIVARATAN MUNDRA
     BOTH ARE R/AT UPAHARA BOHARA COLONY
     KEKRI TALUK
     AJMER DISTRICT-305404
     RAJASTHAN STATE
                                       ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MRC MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    HULIMAVU POLICE STATION
    BENGALURU CITY
    REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT COMPLEX
    BENGALURU -560001

2 . SMT. RUCHI MAHESWARI
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
    W/O LALIT MUNDRA
    R/AT NO.C062
    SHOBA MANGOLIA APARTMENTS
    OPP JALA BHAVAN
    BANNERGHATTA ROAD
    BENGALURU -560 030
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1
 SRI AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN C.C.NO.5349/2020
(CR.NO.314/2018)    REGISTERED     BY     HULIMAVU    P.S.,
BANGALORE    FOR   THE   OFFENCES       PUNISHABLE   UNDER
SECTIONS 114, 307, 498A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF D.P
ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM,
BANGALORE.
                                4



     THESE CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.11.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

Crl.P.No.6540/2022 is filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.5349/2020 in Crime

No.314/2018 registered by Hulimavu Police Station,

Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 114,

307, 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P. Act') now pending on

the file of V ACMM, Bengaluru.

2. Crl.P.No.6712/2022 is filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing the criminal proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.88/2019

filed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20(3) and 22 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(for short 'D.V. Act'), pending on the file of MMTC-VI

Bengaluru.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State and learned counsel for respondent.

In Crl.P.6540/2022

4. The case of the petitioners in Crl.P.6540/2022 is

that on the complaint filed by respondent No.2-Smt. Ruchi

Maheswari before the Hulimavu Police Station on

11.12.2018, the Police registered a case in Crime

No.314/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections

498(A), 120(B), 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.

Act. It is alleged by her that her marriage with accused

No.1-Lalit Mundra was held on 24.11.2012 at Clark Exotica

Resort, Bengaluru and the other accused are in laws and it

was an arranged marriage. That she has married to the

accused No.1 (he is not the petitioner before the court) in

presence of elders as per the Hindu Customs and Rites.

Her husband working in granite factory and the petitioner

family approached for proposal of the marriage and the

marriage programs was negotiated and their marriage was

held. Prior to the marriage at the time of engagement, the

accused persons demanded 20 gms. golden coin weighting

20 gms. each and Rs.1,50,000/- cash was given.

Subsequently, 3 kgs of silver articles, Rs.1 lakh was given

in cash along with 50 gms of golden ornaments and they

spent Rs.50,000/- towards birthday of accused No.1 were

given. Even on the eve of Deepawali festival 100 gms

golden ornaments, 1 lakh cash, 3 kgs silver articles, 6

silver glasses a silver plate, dry fruit box were given and

prior to the marriage, Rs.45 lakhs has been given in the

resort. Further 580 gms golden ornaments, 11 kg silver

articles, 35 kg golden chain, 21 designer sarees, 15 salwar

suit, 21 pairs of footwear, diamond rings, diamond shirt

button, 45 gms golden chain, 120 gms silver lotas and

glasses were given as dowry and the same was received

by accused Nos.1 to 5. After the marriage the complainant

resided with the house of accused at Doddakammanahalli.

Subsequently, the accused/persons demanded additional

dowry and started harassing her physically and mentally.

It is further alleged that the accused No.2 and 9 came

along with accused No.1 and obtained Rs.15 lakhs cash

towards the dowry from the CW2. Subsequently, accused

no.1. assaulted CW1/complainant due to which her ear

drum was damaged. Again, CW2 and CW9 went to the

house of the accused and gave Rs.2 lakhs cash. Once

again accused Nos.2 to 7 abated accused No.1 and

demanded money for doing granite business. Therefore

again Rs.2 lakhs was paid on 5.7.2017 and again Rs.10

lakhs was given. Subsequently, once again Rs.5 lakhs

value of granites has been provided to accused No.1.

Thereafter, once again accused No.1 demanded to provide

a villa at Vakil Hosur Hills at Hosur, once again later

started demanding further dowry. The accused Nos.3 and

4 quarreled with CW1 on 19.12.2017. They abused her in

filthy language and instigated accused No.1, wherein the

accused No.1 said to have tried to strangulate her with her

veil and thereby physically and mentally harassed her.

After collecting the material the police have filed charge

sheet which is under challenge.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

the petitioners are parents-in-law of the defacto

complainant there is no specific allegation made against

them for any harassment. The coordinate bench of this

court already quashed the criminal proceedings against the

accused Nos.5 to 9 in Crl.P.No.2302/2021. There is a clear

observation by the coordinate bench, the allegation against

all the accused persons are omnibus. There is no specific

allegation against any of the accused, relying upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Co-ordinate

Bench quashed the criminal proceedings. Therefore these

petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit and the

proceeding against them is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra Learned counsel for the respondent

and HCGP objected the petition and contended that the

allegation made against accused Nos.2 and 3 who are

parents-in-law, they have demanded the dowry on behalf

of the accused No.1 and received, huge dowry including

the cash, gold and silver ornaments. They further

demanded the cash on behalf of the accused No.1 and it

was given. Therefore, the investigation papers clearly

reveals there is a prima facie case made out against

accused Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the criminal proceedings

cannot be quashed, hence prayed for dismissing the

petition.

       7.    Learned         counsel     for   the   petitioner    in

Crl.   P.No.6712/2022         has   contended    the   proceedings

initiated by the respondent No.2 before the Magistrate

against all the accused persons which is not sustainable,

except the accused No.1 there is no any allegation against

other accused persons and not sought any specific relief

against other respondents. Therefore continuing the

proceedings against them are abuse of process of law, and

liable to be quashed. Hence, prayed for allowing petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent has seriously objected the petition and submits

that the respondent has made out a clear case against all

the above said petitioners for demanding and accepting

the dowry and continuously harassed her. Therefore relief

claimed against all the petitioners for compensation as well

as the maintenance and also to return the gold and

diamond jewellery, silver articles and other expensive

materials. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition.

9. Having heard the arguments and perused the

record. On perusal of records in the Crl.P.No.6540/2022

the allegation made therein by the respondent No.2 which

reveals the accused Nos.1 to 3 especially the accused

Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents of the accused No.1 had

demanded huge dowry by way of golden ornaments, silver

articles, cash and thereafter the same was paid by the

father of respondent No.2. There were huge quantity of

ornaments including gold and silver which were given

during the marriage as demanded by the accused Nos.2

and 3. After the marriage also accused Nos.2 and 3

demanded dowry by way of ornaments and also cash.

Accused No.1 also demanded Rs.45 lakhs for purchasing

the Granite Factory and her parents gave some amount.

Even there was huge demand prior to the marriage by the

accused persons. Ofcourse the other accused persons

there is remote evidence against them, therefore the

coordinate bench had quashed the criminal proceedings

against accused Nos.5 to 9, but on perusal of the very

complaint apart from the charge sheet there is serious

allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 3 in respect of

demand of dowry and receiving the dowry which attracts

Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Additional

dowry after the marriage, which attracts Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act and the abatement of commission of

offence also attracts under section 114 of IPC apart from

section 498A of IPC against these petitioners. Therefore

the ground of parity is not available to these petitioners for

quashing the criminal proceedings, there is abundant

material placed on record against these petitioners for

framing of charges against them, including accused No.1

Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case, in the case of

State of Bihar and Others Vs Anil Singh alias Anil

Kumar Singh and Others reported in 2021 SCC

Online SC 1294 and it was held once the police filed

charge sheet and it may not be appropriate, and to

examine the correctness of the view taken by the High

Court, the accused can approach the trial court in filing

the application for discharge. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the view the material

placed on record attracts the above said provision of IPC.

Therefore petition is devoid of merits and hence liable to

be dismissed.

10. In respect of criminal petition No.6712/2022,

where the petitioners are family members and in-laws of

the respondent/petitioner including the husband. Most of

the averments in the petition filed by the respondent under

section 12 of the DV Act reveals the petitioner No.1 and

the respondent No.1 lived separately and there was no

shared house from the year 2017 onwards and also

contended the husband and wife were residing separately

since last one and half years but the Learned counsel for

the petitioner contended that is barred by limitation for

taking cognizance. On the other hand the respondent

counsel objected the petition and contended that only after

passing the order if any application filed under section 31

of the DV Act, then only the limitation under Section 468

of Cr.P.C. would attract. Therefore, the contention of the

petitioner counsel that action taken by the respondent

under section 468 of Cr.P.C. Act cannot be acceptable. On

the other hand by looking to the averments in the petition

filed by the respondent under section 12 of the DV Act

where she has claimed not only the maintenance from the

husband and also to provide accommodation to the child

and herself and compensation of Rs.20 lakhs and also

direction to return the gold diamond, jewelleries, silver

articles and other household items, apart from the

compensation. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs

Sneha Ahuja in 2021 (1) SCC 414 where the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held the condition for treating a person

as respondent-aggrieved person has to prove that person

arraigned as respondent by her in application under

Section 12 committed act of domestic violence on her. In

this case, it is seen from the records and as already held in

the Crl.P.No.6540/2022 that there was abundant material

placed on record as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and there

is material to show they have harassed the respondent and

huge dowry articles were received which were not returned

back. They also have thrown out the respondent from the

house. However, the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 have no much

material against them except the husband and parents-in-

law. Therefore, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 requires to face

the proceedings before the Magistrate under the DV Act.

Even if the dowry articles were not returned to the wife,

retaining the dowry articles is also an offence punishable

under Section 6 of DP Act. Such being the case, the

petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 have made out case for quashing

the petition and the petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3

liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.6540/2022 filed by the

accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed. The

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall face the trial.

The Crl.P.No.6712/2022 is allowed in part.

Consequently criminal proceedings against

petitioners/respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Crl.Misc.No.88/2019

pending on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic

Court, is hereby quashed.

The petitioners No.1 to 3 shall appear and face the

proceedings.

The trial court is directed to proceed with the case as

expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV