Karnataka High Court
Sridharababu vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43516
CRL.P No. 6308 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6308 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRIDHARABABU
S/O LATE RANGA BASHYAM
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. MEERA SRIDHARABABU
W/O SRIDHARABABU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
3. SARATH KUMAR
S/O SRIDHARABABU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
THE PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.5, 2/2, 2ND CROSS STREET
GOPAL REDDY COLONY, SEMBIUM
JAWAHAR NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 082.
4. SATHYANARAYANA K R
Digitally signed by B S/O RANGABASHYAM
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.15/6, SNC HOMES
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CARPENTER STREET
PERAMBUR, CHENNAI-600 082.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDHAYA KUMAR G.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PSI
MAGADI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE, REP BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43516
CRL.P No. 6308 of 2022
2. DR SAIKAVYA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O SATHISH KUMAR
D/O SRI R MANJUNATH
R/O NO.247/82/2, 2ND FLOOR
12TH A MAIN, 6TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINANT AND FIR AGAINST THESE PETITIONER IN CRIME
NO.176/2021 REGISTERED BY THE MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 34, 498-A OF IPC R/W SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP
ACT THE SAME IS PENDING IN C.C.NO.2285/2022 AT THE COURT OF
3RD ADDITIONAL CMM NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
COURT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A IPC, sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of
the accused No.1 with the defacto complainant was solemnized
on 23.5.2019, and at the time of the marriage, accused No.1
had insisted to pay dowry and the parents of the defacto
complainant had acceded to the said demand.
3. Accused No.1 at the time of negotiation of the
marriage was working in the USA and he promised that he
would take the defacto complainant to the USA. However,
NC: 2023:KHC:43516
accused No.1 before solemnization of the marriage returned to
India, and thereafter the accused insisted to pay additional
money stating that they have to send accused No.5-brother-in-
law abroad.
4. Accused No.1 would often disguise himself by
dressing in women's clothing and used to insist the defacto-
complainant to engage in sexual intercourse to his satisfaction.
When this was brought to the knowledge of the other accused,
instead of advising the accused No.1, they abused the defacto-
complainant in unparliamentary words.
5. The respondent No.2-defacto-complainant though
served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or
through her counsel.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
7. Perusal of the charge sheet and the petition filed by
the defacto-complainant in Cr.Misc.No.33/2021 indicated that,
the defacto complainant was staying with accused No.1 at
Bengaluru, initially at her parental home and thereafter shifted
to Thanisandra and her parents-in-laws are residing separately
at Chennai.
8. The Charge sheet further indicated that the
petitioners are the permanent residents of Chennai and accused
No.1 and the defacto-complainant were residing separately at
Bengaluru. The Charge Sheet further indicated that, except
omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation
NC: 2023:KHC:43516
as against the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 herein as to how, and
in what manner each of the accused subjected the defacto-
complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically, and also a
demand was made to bring money from her parental home.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar
@ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 162at para No.18 has held as follows:
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate
that this court has at numerous instances 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."
10. Hence, the cognizance taken of the aforesaid
offences only on the basis of Omnibus and General allegations
is without any substance. Therefore, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3
and 5 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
NC: 2023:KHC:43516
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2285/2022,
pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court at Bangalore for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A IPC, sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. 1961, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused
Nos.2, 3 and 5 is hereby quashed.
iii) The learned Sessions Judge, to proceed against
accused No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced
by any of the observations made in this order and, the
observation if any, is only for the purpose of the present
petition.
iv) All contentions are kept open.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
