Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harikiran M.C vs State By Karnataka on 23 April, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7115 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4621 OF 2020
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7115/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HARIKIRAN M.C.
S/O SATHYANARAYANA M C K
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.3-143/2, 2ND FLOOR
MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR
PEERZADIGUDA
HYDERABAD-500 097
ALSO EMPLOYED AT:
M/S INFOSYS
EMPLOYED I D : 697414
SEZ SURVEY NO.41 (PT) 50 (PT)
POCHARAM VILLAGE
SINGAPORE TOWN SHIP PO
GHATKESAR MANDAL
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
HYDERABAD-500 092.
2. SRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.C.K
S/O RAMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT BESIDE BOYS HIGH SCHOOL
MAIN ROAD
2
PEAPULLY POST, KURNOOL DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-518 221
3. SMT. SUVARNA LAKSHMI
W/O SATHYANARAYANA M.C.K
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BESIDE BOYS HIGH SCHOOL
MAIN ROAD, PEAPULLY POST
KURNOOL DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-518 221
4. SRI. SUBRAMANYA
S/O SUBBARAYADU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.18/102, PEAPULLY BANTHALA,
NANDIYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-518 301
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KARNATAKA
WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 027
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O HARIKIRAN .M.C
D/O LATE MOHAN .S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.53, NIRMALA BUILDING
IST MAIN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE
SUDHAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI HONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PCR NO.34/2017 IN S.C.NO.1359/2018
DATED 21.06.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN PCR NO.34/2017 WHICH
IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71) AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
IN S.C.NO.1359/2018.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4621/2020
BETWEEN:
HARIKIRAN .M.C
S/O SATHYANARAYANA .M.C.K
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.3-143/2, 2ND FLOOR
MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR, PEERZADIGUDDA
HYDERABAD-500 092
ALSO EMPLOYED AT
M/S INFOSYS
EMPLOYED ID 697414
SEZ SURVEY NO. 41(PT)50(PT)
POCHARAM VILLAGE, SINGAPORE TOWN SHIP PO
GHATKESAR MADAL, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
HYDERABAD-5000088
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001
4
2. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O HARIKIRAN .M.C
D/O LATE MOHAN .S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO. 53, NIRMALA BUILDING
1ST MAIN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE
SUDHAMA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI HONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.1359/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND SECTION
498A, 506, 323 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
These two captioned petitions are filed by accused
seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in
S.C.No.1359/2018 (Crime No.136/2017) on the file of the
LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judges and Special
Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 323, 498(A) of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Crl.P.No.7115/2019 is
filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 who are husband, in-laws and
relative of respondent No.2/complainant.
Crl.P.No.4621/2020 is filed by husband/accused No.1.
2. Respondent No.2, wife of accused No.1 has filed
a private complaint against in-laws, relative and also
husband. The essence of the complaint revolves around
accusation of offences punishable under various Sections of
Indian Penal Code, Dowry Prohibition Act and also under
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The crux of the
complaint pertains to conduct of accused No.1 who is
alleged to have demanded money, subjected his wife i.e.,
respondent No.2 to harassment and cruelty throughout
their marital life. Respondent No.2 by launching the
complaint in 2016 has specifically alleged that her husband
(accused No.1) was persistently demanding money from
her parents to buy a bike. It is also asserted by respondent
No.2 that accused No.1's actions were characterized by
suspicion, restrictions of respondent No.2's freedom by
checking e-mails and also whatsapp messages. The
allegations also remotely indicate instances of dowry
demands and discriminatory treatment by in-laws based on
respondent No.2's caste.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2/complainant and learned HCGP.
4. Before I advert to the allegations made in the
complaint as well as the charge sheet materials, it would be
useful for this Court to refer to the latest judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salib
alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State of U.P. and Others1.
The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that when an accused
seeks to quash FIR or criminal proceedings under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging
that they are frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by ulterior
motives, the Court has a duty to carefully scrutinize the
FIR. The Court noted that complainants with such motives
often draft FIRs meticulously to ensure they meet the
necessary legal requirements. Therefore, the Court cannot
rely solely on the contents of the FIR to determine if the
alleged offence is disclosed. Instead, in such cases, the
Court must consider all relevant circumstances beyond the
FIR itself, including materials collected during investigation,
2023 SCC Online SC 947
and may need to read between the lines to assess the true
nature of the case. The Court asserted that jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Article 226 of the Constitution
allows Courts to take into account the overall circumstances
surrounding the initiation of the case. It would be useful for
this Court to cull out the relevant paragraphs of the
complaint which read as under:
"3. With the marriage of the complainant, she was taken to
the house that was taken on lease in Mavalli, Bangalore.
The complainant and the accused began their marital
relation at that house. It was a rental house taken on lease
by the accused No.1. The accused No.1, soon after the
engagement had told the complainant to quit the job.
The complainant about ten days before the marriage had
left and quit the job. The complainant conceived very soon
after her marriage. The accused No.1 who had a job and
who had to ferry from Mavalli to Domlur, insisted the
complainant to demand a motor bike from her mother.
This was a demand of dowry which the accused No.4 had
also made at the time of marriage negotiations which was
refused by the complainant's mother. The demand was
renewed and very often the accused No.1 kept pesturing
the complainant to purchase the motor bike. In the
meanwhile, the nomination of the LIC policy of the
complainant was also demanded to be changed from her
mother to that of the accused No.1 and it was changed, on
his demand. That the policy was for Rs.5,00,000/-.
The accused No.1 unmindful of the complainant being
pregnant kept demanding the complainant to fetch motor
cycle and had no mercy at all. The accused No.1 had
totally transformed into a different creature. Unable to
bear the repeated demands and harassments, the
complainant conveyed the demand of the accused No.1 to
the complainant's mother. The complainant's mother
assured that, she would do something to meet the
demand, yet, there was urgency on the part of the accused
No.1 and on that point of demand, he quarrelled with the
complainant and her mother. This became a regular habit
of the accused No.1 and he begun assaulting the
complainant causing verbal abuse and ceased to pay any
money to the complainant for her household expense.
Neither the accused No.1 provided any money for medical
check up and examinations. There was once a big fight
over that demand and the accused No.1 had again beat the
complainant on that day. The complainant, pained by such
acts of the accused No.1 and fed-up by the handling of the
accused No.1, the whole day she kept herself to the
Annamma temple at Majestic, Bangalore. When the
complainant's mother did not find her in the house,
panicked, on her return, her mother on that night agreed
to pay Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of a bike for the
accused No.1. On the very same night, the complainant's
mother paid Rs.50,000/- to purchase the bike and asked
the accused No.1 to contribute the differential amount for
the purchase of it. Though paid with the money, the
accused No.1 did not purchase the motor bike, neither did
he purchase any vehicle and drained all the money paid by
her mother. Thereafter the accused No.1 devised other
vicious method of harassing the complainant by suspecting
the complainant's character and fidelity. Time and again he
would say that, the complainant has many number of
friends and that she is occupied with them. The accused
No.1 would check the mobile phone every time he comes
home and also used to check her mails without the
complainant's knowledge, as he knew her e-mail password.
This was insulting and keeping the complainant in trauma.
The accused No.1 was a vegetarian, therefore, had
prohibited the complainant from bringing, preparing or
having Non-vegetarian food. Neither the accused No.1
provided any nutritious food when she was carrying her
child. The whole of the pregnancy time had a terrible time
for the complainant as she was ill-fed. Under such
circumstances on 18.03.2013 she gave birth to the child in
St. Phelomina's Hospital Bangalore. It was a painful
delivery as it was a caesarean labor. After delivery, the
complainant was taken to her mother's house and care was
provided. The accused No.1's company paid for the medical
expenses of the complainant. For the five months of stay in
her house, the accused No.1 lived there, but without
paying for any expenses. The naming ceremony of the
child was made on 11.08.2013 and all family members of
the accused were invited, but, none attended from the
accused side. Neither the accused No.2 to 4 visited the
complainant or the child. The accused No.1 then took the
complainant to a house which he had made at Domlur
which he felt would be near to his employment place.
For about eight to nine months the complainant and the
accused stayed at Domlur and thereafter the accused told
that, he has the project work at Chennai for about a week
and left. Thereafter, the accused No.1 conveyed that, he
has found a new job and therefore, herself and the child
has to move there. Packing everything, the complainant
and the child were taken to Chennai. For about a year the
complainant lived in Chennai, but, the complainant No.1
harassed the complainant with same treatment which he
use to treat in Bangalore by paying nothing for the house
hold expenses and quarrelling on every trivial issues. The
accused No.1 had a very bad habit of suspecting the
complainant's character and dedication towards him and he
would address her in a foul and filthy language. The
complainant had offered to take up an employment to ease
my financial problems, but, the accused No.1 strictly
refused to have any employment. The reason behind
refusing her to join the employment was his distrust.
4. That, after staying for about a year in Chennai, the
accused No.1 told that, the complainant had to move to
Hyderabad, where he has founded job at Infosys. The
complainant and the family moved to Hyderabad in a
rented house taken by the accused No.1 and it was in
April 2015. That, the accused had very well planned to
move out of Bangalore. Now, he was near to his home
town. With the accused shifting to Hyderabad, the accused
No.2 to 4 and the other member of his family were the
regular visitors to the house, but, it was for accused No.1
alone. The accused No.2 to 4 begun to execute their plans
of separating the accused No.1 and in doing so, they begun
to guide the accused No.1 in such a way that he begun to
keep himself aloof. They demanded that all the jewelleries
which the complainant has should be kept and handed over
to the accused No.2 and 3. This was refused by the
complainant, which gave rise to violent fights and quarrels
from the accused No.1. times. The complainant was beaten
mercilessly many a times. Later, there was a suggestion
that, the complainant, if she was not interested in handing
over the jewels to the accused No.1, 2 or 3 should be
placed in a bank locker. The complainant was forced to
open a locker jointly with the accused No.1 which was
obtained on rent. The complainant was not comfortable of
placing jewels in the locker as she was aware of the habits
of the accused No.1 who had drained everything which
were given to him at the time of marriage and on the
pretext of buying a motor cycle. That, the accused No.1 to
3 did not leave the complainant to live in peace until they
took the jewels from the complainant. The fate of the
jewels are not known to the complainant and she
reasonably believes that, those jewels have been moved to
their native place at Peapuly, Karnool District, Andra
Pradesh, moved by the accused No.1 to 4. Once the jewels
were taken by them, the neglect of the complainant and
the child begun. There were no provisions of any kind for
the complainant nor for the child. In the month of
November/December 2015 the marriage of Mr. Pradeep,
the brother-in-law of the complainant was celebrated at
Ananthpur, and from there the complainant and the child
went to the house at Peapully, Kurnool, but, the entire folk
of the house refused to let the complainant and the child in
the house. With great difficulty, the complainant and the
child were admitted in the building, but, were confined to
the veranda without any permit to use other part of the
house. There was no entry even to the main hall of the
house. For her needs, the complainant had taken help from
the neighbours. The complainant was prohibited from using
or entering the Kitchen, Bathroom, toilet and the utilities of
the house. The complainant nor the child were fed with any
food or other necessity. Even the milk for the child was
refused and had to fetch from bakery. The complainant
suffer all these treatment as she was from a Dalit
Commune, which fact all the accused and their families
knew very well. That, the entire house folk including the
women and younger ones discriminated the complainant
for her caste and creed. The complainant was very much
pained by the acts of accused No.1 to 4. Accused No.1 was
a mute spectator and instead of helping her, supported his
parents and relatives. The accused No.1 intentionally let
her down in a situation, were his entire family was against
the complainant. The complainant could understand that,
everything happened, was under the consent and the
support of accused No.1. The complainant told and
conveyed everything that had happened to her mother, but
she was aged and widow, was helpless. The life did go on
with misery. That on 16.02.2016, unable to bear the
harassment, the complainant took the medicines that were
in the home to end her life and she became unconscious.
She was unconscious till next day, but, the accused did not
take the complainant to any hospital or clinic. On
17.02.2016, the Complainant's mother came to Hyderabad
and brought her to Bangalore on 18.02.2016. For all these
days the Complainant was exhausted so was the child.
The child was fed under difficult conditions, but the
accused No.1 had no kind heart either for the Complainant
or for the child. That because the Complainant was under
dreadful conditions, the mother lost no time and brought
her to Bangalore for treatment.
5. The Complainant submit that, after her coming to
Bangalore she stayed with her mother and tried to contact
the accused No.1, but, for assuring that, he would come to
Bangalore to sort out the issues, did not come, instead, a
notice dated: 01.04.2016 was received by the Complainant
sent by the accused No.1 pleading and narrating all false
things. The Complainant could understand that, the
accused No.1 has different intentions and he is acting
under the influence of accused No.2, 3 and other family
members who by now had expressed that the Complainant
is not acceptable to them. Communicating the true
happenings, a reply was sent on 13.04.2016 to the
accused No.1."
5. This Court has meticulously reviewed the private
complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against the
petitioners. The crux of the complaint revolves around
allegations of cruelty, dowry demands and discrimination
based on caste purported primarily by accused No.1 and
few instances at the hands of in-laws when they visited
respondent No.2 and accused No.1 at Hyderabad. The
central to the complaint is assertion by respondent
No.2/wife that accused No.1 was persistently demanding
dowry from her parents. On meticulous reading of the
entire complaint, what can be gathered is that complaint
paints a picture of tumultuous marital life of respondent
No.2 with accused No.1 by suspicion, denial of basic
freedom and instances of dowry demands and
discrimination based on caste.
6. From the records, it is borne out that
immediately after marriage, respondent No.2/complainant
primarily resided separately from petitioner Nos.2 and 3
who are in-laws who are based at Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
Accused No.4/petitioner No.4 in Crl.P.No.7115/2019 is a
resident of Kurnool and there are no specific allegations
after solemnization of marriage in 2012. The only vague
allegations against accused No.4 is that he was part of the
marriage talks and marriage ceremonies and there are
allegations that he supported his sister i.e., petitioner
No.3/accused No.3 regarding dowry demands. However,
there are no specific allegations against accused No.4 in
regard to cruelty or caste based atrocities.
7. Insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, the entire
allegations in the complaint coupled with charge sheet
materials lacks substantive evidence so as to proceed
against accused No.4. The materials placed by the
Investigating Officer does not indicate direct involvement by
accused No.4 in the acts of cruelty or discrimination
detailed in the complaint. Furthermore, the Investigating
Officer's inquiry, spanning two years from the registration
of the complaint, involved the examination of witnesses
who testified to the harassment faced by respondent No.2
at the hands of the in-laws during their visits to Hyderabad.
However, it is noted that these witnesses, although cited in
the complaint, have not been named as witnesses in the
charge.
8. This Court has to also examine the allegations
insofar as in-laws are concerned. In the light of dictum laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court with all caution
has examined the charge sheet materials to ascertain
whether culpability is ascribed against in-laws based on
prima facie materials presented.
9. First and foremost, the respondent
No.2/complainant's marital life with accused No.1 spanned
a duration of six years. While complaint is lodged in 2016,
the allegations against in-laws primarily pertain to incidents
surrounding dowry demands that purportedly occurred at
the time of marriage in 2012. It is relevant to take
cognizance of the temporal aspects of these accusations, as
they are rooted in events that transpired several years prior
to filing of complaint in 2016. This temporal gap raised
questions regarding the timeliness and relates to allegations
vis-à-vis statutory provisions governing such matters.
10. Furthermore, on critical examination of
complaint and charge sheet materials, reveals that
respondent No.2 and accused No.1 never resided together
with in-laws. This aspect is pivotal, as it pertains directly to
the applicability of Section 498A of IPC which is predicated
on the premise of cruelty or harassment inflicted upon a
woman by her husband or her relatives "in connection with
the marriage".
11. In the present case, absence of substantive
allegations or evidence implicating in-laws in acts of cruelty
or harassment against respondent No.2, coupled with
temporal disparity between the alleged incidents and filing
of complaint, militates against invocation of Section 498(A)
of IPC. The charge sheet materials prima facie do not
establish a nexus between the in-laws actions and
purported atrocities to warrant a trial against the in-laws.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court's power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assumes paramount
importance. This provision empowers the Court to
intervene when it deems fit to prevent abuse of legal
process or miscarriage of justice. This Court has
meticulously examined the allegations made in the
complaint and the charge sheet materials. This Court is
more than satisfied that the allegations insofar as accused
Nos.2 to 4 lacks substantive merit and is not supported by
any prima facie material to proceed against accused Nos.2
to 4. The allegations in the complaint coupled with charge
sheet materials do not meet the legal threshold for invoking
498(A) of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act as well as
provisions of Section 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, accused No.1 has
to face trial as there are specific allegations in the complaint
relating to dowry demand and harassment at the hands of
accused No.1.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.4621/2020 filed by accused
No.1/husband is dismissed;
(ii) Crl.P.No.7115/2019 is allowed in part.
The proceedings pending in S.C.No.1359/2018
arising out of PCR.No.34/2017 on the file of the
LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judges and
Special Judge, Bengaluru for the offences
punishable under Sections 506, 323, 498(A) of
IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are
quashed insofar as accused Nos.2 to 4 are
concerned;
(iii) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive
for consideration and stand disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
