C J Karigowda vs State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 10384 Kant

Karnataka High Court

C J Karigowda vs State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2024

                        1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                     BEFORE

    HON'BLE JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

      CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2839 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1 . C J KARIGOWDA
    S/O JAVAREGOWDA
    AGED 68 YEARS
    R/A NO.18, II CROSS,
    VIVEKA NAGARA
    HASSAN,HASSAN TLAUK
    HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

2 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA
    W/O C J KARIGOWDA
    AGED 61 YEARS
    R/A NO. 18, II CROSS
    VIVEKA NAGARA, HASSAN
    HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

3 . C K LOHIT
    S/O C J KARIGOWDA
    AGED 39 YEARS
    PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
    HOLDEN STREET, GOSFORD
    NSW-2250, AUSTRALIA

4 . C K MADHU
    S/O C J KARIGOWDA
    AGED 32 YEARS
    PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
                           2


     4457, 2ND CROSS
     VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE
     NEAR KD CIRCLE, MYSORE-570 016.
                                         ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY WOMEN POLICE
     STATION
     TUMKUR
     REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC
     PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF
     KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU-560 001.

2.   MRS. LAVANYA B P
     W/O PRADEEP C K
     AGED 34 YEARS
     SRI LAXMI NIVASA
     CHANDANA CROSS
     KUMMATTAYYA LAYOUT
     BANASHANKARI II STAGE
     TUMKUR-577 101.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. GIRISH D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE C.C.NO.64/2020 ARISING OUT OF F.I.R. IN
CR.NO.79/2019 OF TUMAKUR WOMEN POLICE STATION
                                3


FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., TUMAKURU.


      THIS CRL.P HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS      ON    10.04.2024,        COMING      ON    FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by in-laws and

brothers-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant

seeking quashing of the proceedings in

C.C.No.64/2020 arising out of FIR in Crime

No.79/2019 of Tumkur Police Station.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Respondent No.2/complainant's marriage with

accused No.1 was solemnized on 4.3.2010. It is

alleged that accused No.1 who is the son of accused

Nos.1 and 2 was working at Dubai. Later, he shifted

to Qatar and respondent No.2 accompanied accused

No.1. However, accused No.1 returned to India and

as respondent No.2-complainant had conceived, went

to her parental home.

3. Respondent No.2/complainant lodged a

complaint on 20.7.2019 alleging that her husband and

in-laws have ill-treated her and have demanded

dowry. Respondent No.2 withdrew the complaint on

6.8.2019 on the ground that her husband has agreed

to take care of respondent No.2 and her daughter and

has assured that he will provide a separate residence.

Petitioners 1 and 2, who are in-laws, assured

respondent No.2-complainant that they would pay

monthly Rs.20,000/-.

4. Within a span of a week, respondent No.2

lodged similar complaint which led to registration of

FIR in Crime No.0079/2019 and the Investigating

Officer has filed the charge sheet. The sum and

substance of the complaint is that Petitioner No.2 in

2010 used to ill-treat respondent No.2 on trivial issues

and on the ground that respondent No.2 was not

properly doing household work. Respondent No.2 has

alleged that petitioner No.1/father-in-law has enquired

with respondent No.2 in regard to sites owned by her

father. She has also alleged that accused

No.1/husband used to make repeated demands of

dowry and her father has paid Rs.7,35,000/-. She has

also alleged that while her in-laws were in Australia

along with petitioner No.3, they requested respondent

No.2 to move out of the house along with accused

No.1. This is the sum and substance of the

allegations in the complaint.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned HCGP and learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2.

6. Before I proceed further, it would be useful

for this Court to cull out the statements of petitioners

1 and 2 recorded in earlier complaint, which reads as

under:

"1. ೆ ಕ ೌಡ, S/O ೇ ಜವ ೇ ೌಡ 70 ವಷ ಒಕ ಗರು ವ ವ ಾಯ ೇಕನಗರ ೧ ೆ ಮುಖ ರ ೆ" ೨ ೇ $ಾ%& ತುಮಕೂರು-9986175838.

2.)ಾಗ ಮ* W/o ೆಕ ೌಡ ೬೦ ವಷ ಒಕ ಗರು ವ ವ ಾಯ ೇಕನಗರ ೧ ೆ ಮುಖ ರ ೆ" ೨ ೇ $ಾ%& ತುಮಕೂರು

ಾವ-ಗಳ/ 0ೕಲ ಂಡ 3ಾಸದ 6 ಾಸ ಾ7ರು8ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ನಮ*ಗಳ ರುದ9 ನಮ* ೊ ೆ:ಾದ ಾವಣ <= ರವರು >ಾನ ?ೆಚುAವ B ೕ& ಅDೕEಕ ರವ ೆ FೕGರುವ ಅH ಯನುI ಓK LMದು$ೊಂGರು8ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ನಮ* Nದಲ ೇ ಮಗ ಾದ ಪ%KೕP $ೆ ರವ ೊಂK ೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ಬನಶಂಕ ಾ ಪ-ಟT ಾUV ರವರ ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಗ3ಾದ ಾವಣ ಅವ ೊಂK ೆ ಸು>ಾರು 9 ವಷ ಗಳ XಂYೆ ಮದು ೆ >ಾGದYೆZೕವ-. ಇವ ೆ ಆರು ವಷ ದ ಒಬ]ಳ/ ಮಗMರು8ಾ"3 ೆ, ಸಂ ಾರದ ^ಾರದ 6 ೈಮನಸು` ಉಂbಾ7 ನಮ* ೊ ೆ ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* ಮಗ ಈ ೆd ಸು>ಾರು ಎರಡು ವಷ ಗMಂದಲೂ eೇ ೆeೇ ೆ ಇರು8ಾ" ೆ. ಇನುI ಮುಂYೆ ಾವ- ನಮ* ಮಗ ೊ ೆ ^ೆ ಾI7 ಸಂ ಾರ >ಾG$ೊಂಡು ?ೋಗಲು ನಮ*Yೇನೂ ಅಭ ಂತರ ಲ6. ಇನುI 15 Kವಸದ ಒಳ ಾ7 ಸಂ ಾರ$ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT ಾಮ7%ಗಳ/ ?ಾಗೂ ೇಷh ವ ವ ೆi >ಾG ತನI ಮಗ- ೊ ೆ ಮಗುವನುI ಕ ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ?ೋ7 ಸಂ ಾರ ನjೆಸುವ-ದರ 6 ನಮ* ಅಭ ಂತರ ೇನೂ ಇರುವ-Kಲ6. ?ಾಗೂ ಆ "ಯ )ಾಗ$ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟTಂ8ೆ ಮಕ M ೆ ಸಮ ಾ7 ಹಂl$ೆ >ಾಡು8ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ಇನುIಮುಂYೆ ನಮ* ೊ ೆ Nಮ*ಗM ೆ :ಾವ-Yೇ 8ೊಂದ ೆ:ಾಗದಂ8ೆ ನಮ* ಮಗF ೆ Lಳ/ವM$ೆ FೕG ಸಂ ಾರ ನjೆ $ೊಂಡು ?ೋಗಲು LM ರು8ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* ೊ ೆ ೆ ೆರ ಾ7 Fಲು6ವ ಜ ಾeಾZ ನಮ*Yಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ ?ಾಗೂ ಜನವ 2020 ಂದ ನಮ* ೊ ೆ ಾವಣ BP ರವರ ಅ$ೌಂ ` 20000/- ಾ ರ ?ಾಕುವ ಜ ಾeಾZ ನಮ*Yಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ, ?ಾಗೂ ನmಮ ಮಗ $ೆಲಸ$ೆ ?ೋ7 ?ೆಂಡL ಮಗು ೆ 8ೊಂದ ೆ >ಾಡದಂ8ೆ

Lಳ/ವM$ೆ ?ೇಳ/ವ ಜ ಾeಾZ ನಮ*Yಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ 0ೕಲ ಂಡ Fಬಂಧ ೆಗM ೆ ತ=nದ ೆ ನಮ*ಗಳ ರುದ9 $ಾನೂನು ೕತ ಕ%ಮ ಜರು7ಸಬಹುದು ?ಾಗೂ 2 ಾ%ಂ lನIದ ಒಡ ೆಗಳನುI $ೊGಸುವ ಜ ಾeಾZ ಇರು8ೆ"."

7. It would be also useful to cull out the

statements of petitioner No.4 recorded on 2.8.2019,

which reads as under:

"ಮಧು $ೆ ?ೋಂ ಕ ೌಡ ೆ, 32 ವಷ , ಒಕ ಗರು, ಅ ೆTಂ B%pೆಸq, $ೊbಾTರ ^ೌr, sಾ6 ನಂಬq 101, t%:ಾ ಅsಾmÉäðA ಅಬ]ಕ ನಗರ, $ೊbಾTರ, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 575006, ph no 9731283249

ಾನು 0ೕಲ ಂಡ 3ಾಸದ 6 ಾಸ ಾ7ರು8ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ನನI ರುದ9 ನಮ* ಅL" ೆ :ಾದ ಾವಣ <= ರವರು >ಾನ ?ೆಚುAವ B ೕ& ವ uಾvD$ಾ ಗM ೆ FೕGರುವ ಅH ಯನುI ಓK LMದು$ೊಂGರು8ೆ"ೕ ೆ. ನಮ* ಅಣwF ೆ ಈ ೆd ಸು>ಾರು 9 ವಷ ಗಳ XಂYೆ ಾವಣ <= ರವ ೊಂK ೆ ಮದು ೆ >ಾGದುZ ಇವ ೆ ಒಂದು ?ೆಣುw ಮಗು ರುತ"Yೆ ಸಂ ಾರದ ^ಾರದ 6 ೈಮನಸು` ಉಂbಾ7 ಎರಡು ವಷ Kಂದ eೇ ೆ eೇ ೆ ಇದುZ ಇನುI 15 Kವಸದ 6 ತುಮಕೂ ನ ಅಮರ ೊ ೕL ನಗರದ 6 ಮ ೆ >ಾG ಅL" ೆ ಮಗುವನುI ಕ ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ?ೋ7 ಸಂ ಾರದ ಸಂಪxಣ ಜ ಾeಾZ ವX $ೊಂಡು ಅ£ÉÆåÃನ ಾ7 ಸಂ ಾರ >ಾG $ೊಡುವ-Yಾ7 ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* ತಂYೆ 8ಾyಯ ಆ "ಯ 6 ಎಲ6 ಗೂ ಸಮ)ಾಗ >ಾಡುವ-Yಾ7 ?ಾಗೂ ಜನವ 2020 ಂದ ನಮ* ಅL" ೆಯ ಅ$ೌಂz ೆ 20 ಾ ರ ರೂ ?ಾrಸುವ-Yಾ7 ನಮ* ತಂYೆ-8ಾy ?ಾಗೂ ಾನು ಒ=n ೆ FೕGರು8ೆ"ೕ ೆ ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* ಅL" ೆಯ ಸಂ ಾರದ 6 ಾವ- )ಾ7:ಾ7 8ೊಂದ ೆ FೕGದ ೆ ನನI ರು{ಧ $ಾನೂನು ೕತ ಕ%ಮ ಜರು7ಸಬಹುYಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ ?ಾಗೂ ಎರಡು ನೂರು ಾ%ಮಗಳ ಬ ೆd ನಮ* ತಂYೆ- 8ಾy ನಮ*ಣw ಜ ಾeಾZ :ಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ."

8. If the charge sheet materials along with the

statements recorded in the previous complaint are

meticulously examined, it is noted that accused No.1

who is the husband of respondent No.2, is primarily

implicated for the alleged offence as per the

complaint. On reading the statements of the in-laws

recorded in the earlier complaint, it can be easily

gathered that respondent No.2, on the contrary, is

expecting financial assistance from the in-laws.

Moreover, it is clearly evident that first complaint filed

by respondent No.2 was withdrawn upon assurance of

separate residence and financial assistance, which

were allegedly agreed to be paid by petitioners 1

and 2.

9. Therefore, this Court is more than satisfied

that filing of the present complaint seems to stem

from dissatisfaction with the fulfillment of these

assurances rather than any specific criminal conduct

attributed to present petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5.

On meticulous examination of the allegations in the

complaint and the charge sheet materials, it emerges

that involvement of accused Nos.2 to 5 in the alleged

offences remains tangential at best. While they have

assured in relation to request for relocation and

financial assistance, the core allegations of dowry

demands and ill-treatment are squarely directed

against accused No.1. Further more, the sequence of

events, including the withdrawal of first complaint and

filing of second complaint underscores the nuanced

nature of the dispute. The withdrawal of first

complaint upon an assurance of separate residence

and financial assistance, followed by its re-filing due

to perceived non-compliance reflects dissatisfaction of

a daughter-in-law as against petitioners 1 and

2/in-laws.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Salib alias

Shalu alias Salim .vs. State of U.P. and

others1has held that the Courts under Section 482

have to look into the FIR with care and a little more

closely when proceedings are manifestly frivolous or

vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive. The

Supreme Court, along with numerous High Courts, in

plethora of judgments, have consistently upheld the

principle that vague and general allegations in cases

involving Section 498A of the IPC should not lead to

the inclusion of in-laws in criminal trials without

specific and credible allegations. This legal precedent

recognizes the potential misuse of laws aimed at

preventing cruelty against women in matrimonial

relationships. This temporal aspect is significant, as

the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the

need for a specific role to be attributed to in-laws in

cases of alleged harassment. In situations where the

2023 SCC Online SC 947

wife and in-laws of husband have lived together for an

extremely brief period, the rationale for implicating

the in-laws in criminal proceedings becomes dubious.

The Court's stance on discouraging criminal trials

based on vague accusations aligns with the

circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court has

emphasized that the relatives of the husband should

not undergo the tribulations of a criminal trial unless a

specific role in the alleged offenses is attributed to

them. Therefore, the separation of the complainant

from her in-laws, coupled with the absence of specific

and credible allegations against them, forms a

compelling case for quashing of criminal proceedings.

11. Moreover, considering the circumstances

whereby petitioner No.3 previously resided in

Bangalore and subsequently relocated to Australia

with his family in 2013, and petitioner No.4, who

entered into marriage in 2017, currently resides in

Mysore, it is evident that neither of the petitioners

have cohabitated with the complainant. Consequently,

petitioners 3 and 4, who are the complainant's

brother-in-laws, have been implicated in the present

case solely based on unsubstantiated allegations

without any specific accusations of harassment

attributed towards them. Given these circumstances,

this Court finds it equitable to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners.

12. In the light of the discussions made supra,

this Court is of the opinion that accused Nos.2 to 5

find themselves entangled in a legal dispute primarily

stemming from allegations levied against accused

No.1, husband of respondent No.2. The crux of the

matter revolves around dowry demand and allegations

of ill-treatment predominately attributed to accused

No.1. Given the circumstances and for want of prima

facie materials against accused Nos.2 to 5, it is just

and equitable to invoke inherent powers vested under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings only

against the petitioners to prevent misuse of legal

process against individuals who are not substantially

implicated in the alleged offences.

13. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.64/2020 arising out of FIR in Crime No.79/2019 of Tumkur Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending on the file of 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-