Karnataka High Court
Sri. Prashant Sankolli vs The State on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE DAY OF 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.978/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PRASHANT SANKOLLI
S/O.PRABHAKAR SANKOLLI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT G-109, DNA OPULENCE
NALLURAHALLI, WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA 560 066
2. SRI PRABHAKAR SANKOLLI
S/O NARAYAN SANKOLLI
AGED 76 YEARS
3. SMT SUMAN PRABHAKAR SANKOLLI
W/O. PRABHAKAR SANKOLLI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
4. SMT PADMAJA DHARESHWAR
W/O MANISH DHARESHWAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT SF-6 YASHODHAN
OPPOSITE VRINDIVA GARDEN, VARKHANDEM
PONDA, NORTH GOA 403 401
5. MR SANJAY SANKOLLI
S/O PRABHAKAR SANKOLLI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
6. SMT SANJANA SANKOLLI
W/O. SANJAY SANKILLI
2
AGED ABOUT 32 YEAS
PETITIONERS 2, 3, 5 AND 6 ARE PRESENTLY
R/AT RAMNATH KRUPA, NEAR DADA
VAIDYA HIGH SCHOOL, SINDHUNAGAR - CURTI
PONDA GOA 403 401 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI GAURAV V K, ADVOCATE;
PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER NO.1 IS
DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED )
AND:
1. THE STATE- THROUGH THE SPP
WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU RURAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SOWMYA PRASHANT SANKOLLI
D/O SATYANARAYAN B
R/AT BATWADI HOUSE
BANKESHWARA YEDTHARE
BYANDOOR VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK
UDUPI 576 214 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY - HCGP FOR R1;
SRIYUTHS UMESH B FOR R B DESHPANDE - ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.444/16 OF WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION AND
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,
1961 R/W.SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
FIR is registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 r/w Section 34 of IPC
alleging that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded
wife of A1, A2 & A3 are parents-in-law, A4 and A6 are
sisters-in-law and A5 is the brother in law and that
they have subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty both
mentally and physically and also demanded to bring
money from her parental home.
2. Taking exception of the same, the accused are
before the Court.
3. Petition against A1 was dismissed as
withdrawn.
4. Learned counsel appearing for A2 to A6
submits that except the omnibus and general
allegations, there is no specific allegation as to how
and in what manner A2 to A6 subjected respondent
No.2 to cruelty, both mentally and physically. Hence,
he submits that the petitioners accused have been
falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to wreak
vengeance and with revengeful intent.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 submits that the allegations made in the FIR
discloses commission of offences alleged against the
petitioners-accused and the said allegations requires
to be investigated and at this stage, registration of
FIR does not warrant interference and sought for
dismissal of the petition.
6. I have examined the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties.
7. Perusal of the first information report lodged
by respondent No.2 indicates that except omnibus and
general allegations, there is no specific allegation as to
how and in what manner A2 to A6 subjected
respondent No.2 to cruelty, both mentally and
physically. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar alias sonam and others v. State of
Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC online SC 162
in paragraph 18 has held as under :
"18. The above mentioned decisions
clearly demonstrate that this Court has at
numerous instance expressed concern over the
misuse of 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"
8. In view of the aforesaid decision, continuation
of investigation against the petitioners will be an
abuses of process of law. Accordingly, the following
order is passed :
ORDER
i) The Criminal petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.444/16 registered
by the Whitefield Police station, Bengaluru Rural
District, insofar as A2 to A6, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rs
