Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dilip Kumar S vs State By on 26 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
CRL.P No. 5207 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5207 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DILIP KUMAR S
S/O N. SRIKANTAIH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.22, KAUSTHABA,
2nd MAIN, SANDYAGAPPA LAYOUT,
MARIYANNAPALYA,
COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
2. SMT. SAVITHRI
W/O SRIKANTAIH,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.234, 8th CROSS,
DEVARA CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD,
(DC HALLI ROAD),
Digitally signed by DUO HEIGHTS LAYOUT,
BHAVANI BAI G
Location: High BEGUR BOMMANAHALLI,
Court of
Karnataka BNGALURU - 560 068.
3. N. SRIKANTAIAH
S/O LATE N S NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.234, 8th CROSS,
DEVARA CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD,
(D C HALLI ROAD),
DUO HEIGHTS LAYOUT,
BEGUR BOMMANAHALLI
BNGALURU - 560 068.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
CRL.P No. 5207 of 2022
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 PERMANENT R/O
NO.1344, 3rd MAIN, 8th CROSS,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 023.
4. SRI. DEEPAK S
S/O N. SRIKANTAIH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.234, 8th CROSS,
DEVARA CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD,
(D C HALLI ROAD),
DUO HEIGHTS LAYOUT,
BEGUR BOMMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
5. SMT. VIDYA N
W/O DEEPAK S,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.234, 8th CROSS,
DEVARA CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD,
(D C HALLI ROAD),
DUO HEIGHTS LAYOUT,
BEGUR BOMMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
6. SMT. DIVYA
D/O SRIKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2528, 12th CROSS,
A BLOCK, SINGASANDRA,
AECS LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
CRL.P No. 5207 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE BY
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
LASHKAR MOHALLA,
MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU - 570 001.
REPRESENTED BY SPP.
2. SMT. SRIDEVI S
D/O SRI. SHIVASHANKARA,
W/O SRI. DILIP KUMAR S.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1905, 1st MAIN,
3rd CROSS, K BLOCK,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K.S.KARTHIK KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT
DATED 24.05.2022 IN CR.NO.64/2022 DATED 24.05.2022 BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, JLB ROAD, MYSURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC AND
SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
CRL.P No. 5207 of 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime
No.64/2022 registered by the Mysuru City Women Police
Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(for short 'D.P. Act').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-
State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent
No.2 filed a written complaint to the Police on 24.05.2022, in
turn the police registered the FIR against the petitioners for the
above said offences. It is alleged by her that her marriage
along with petitioner No.1 was held on 23.10.2015 at
Sindhoora Convention Hall, Mysore. Petitioner No.1 is her
husband and the other petitioners are her in-laws. After the
marriage, the petitioners were demanding motorcycle and also
site and continuously harassing respondent No.2 and also she
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
has purchased furniture out of her salary savings. She has
given birth to the female child and as they were not satisfied
with the same, they always used to blame her that she has not
gave birth to the male child. Accused persons made continuous
harassment on respondent No.2. Therefore, complaint came to
be filed. After receiving the complaint, the Police registered the
FIR which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended
that on perusal of the entire complaint, there is no cognizance
offence made for investigating the matter and further
contended that as per the allegation and legal notice issued by
the respondent No.2 through her counsel, the petitioner No.1
forcibly dropped the respondent No.2 in her parents' house at
Mysuru on 29.10.2021, thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued
legal notice through her advocate on 11.11.2021 calling the
petitioner No.1 to give consent for the mutual divorce under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
subsequently, the petitioner No.1 replied on 20.11.2021
agreeing for giving consent to the petition under Section 13-B
of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce and subsequently on
09.12.21, respondent No.2 sent a draft divorce petition by
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
demanding Rs.25,00,000/- towards marriage expenditure and
Rs.30,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child
and Rs.1,50,00,000/- towards the permanent alimony.
Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 sent an email not agreeing
for the payments as demanded by the respondent and he has
given consent for payment of Rs.15,000/- per month towards
the school fees and Rs.8,00,000/- will be kept in the F.D for the
child and Rs.12,000/- per month to the Sukanya Samrudhi
account which is equivalent to LIC policy and refused to pay
any permanent maintenance to the respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently
the respondent also filed divorce petition on 17.01.2022. The
notice was issued by the petitioner and the matter was referred
to the mediation on 28.02.2022 and awaited report by
4.6.2022. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 filed complaint on
4.5.2022 to the Police. The police issued notice to the
Petitioner No.1 to appear for the investigation or enquiry. The
same was challenged before the High Court by filing writ
petition. Meanwhile, on 24.05.2022 by overwriting on the date,
the police registered the FIR against the petitioner and hence
contended that the entire complaint filed by the respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
No.2 is only to grab Rs.1,50,00,000/- towards the permanent
alimony and nothing else. Accused made a case for
investigating the matter and further contended that
subsequently the divorce has also been granted. The
maintenance of Rs.18,000/- also granted by the Family Court
to the respondent No.2 and hence, prayed for quashing the
FIR.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
seriously objected and contended that there is averment made
in the complaint for taking cognizance on the petitioner for
investigating the matter. Though there was conciliation and a
notice issued by the police only for preliminary enquiry as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and
others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, that itself is not a ground
for quashing the FIR. There was NCR issued by the police on
the same day. Even there is no bar for filing complaint after
filing the divorce petition. Therefore, there is a cruelty made
out by respondent No.2 in the hands of the petitioner. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also
supported the contention of respondent No.2 and contended
that he also filed an application for obtaining the interim stay
and matter required for investigation. There is a cognizance
case by the petitioner for investigating the matter. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the petition.
8. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the
records, which reveals, it is not in dispute that there was some
family dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2.
Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 said to be dropped the
respondent No.2 in the house of her parents on 29.10.2021. It
is also an admitted fact that subsequently on 11.11.2021, the
respondent No.2 sent a legal notice through her counsel for
demanding the consent for mutual divorce and absolutely,
there is no any cruelty or harassment made by the petitioner
on the respondent No.2. The main intention of the respondent
No.2 is getting consent for divorce.
9. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner No.1 has
given reply to the legal notice through his advocate giving
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
mutual consent for divorce and asked for the joint divorce
petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
10. It is also not in dispute that on 09.12.2021, the
respondent No.2 once again sent the draft divorce petition
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, where there was
some conditions at paragraph 12 of the draft notice where
there was a settlement. Petitioner No.1-Dileep Kumar agreed to
pay Rs.25,00,000/- towards marriage expenditures and
Rs.30,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child
and also Rs.1,50,00,000/- to petitioner No.1 towards the
permanent alimony. For that, the petitioner given email reply
on 9.12.2021 disagreeing with the permanent alimony of
Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- towards the marriage
expenses. However, he has stated that the respondent No.2
has to return her mangal sutra, 2-Bangles, 2-rings and earrings
which belong to the petitioner No.1 and also agreed to deposit
Rs.8,00,000/- as F.D. in the name of his child and Rs.15,000/-
ready to pay towards the school expenditure. Rs.12,000/- per
month towards the LIC policy of the child and further the
petitioner has stated that the jewelleries and silver items shall
be exchanged, household articles shall be given back and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
Rs.15,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses. Subsequently
the respondent No.2 filed divorce petition on 17.01.2022 under
Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of
cruelty. The date was fixed on 28.02.2022 for appearance of
the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was appeared on
28.02.2022 . The matter was referred to the BMC and report
was awaited on 04.06.2022. Subsequently the respondent
No.2 went to the Police station on 4.5.2022 and files complaint
against the petitioner No.1 and subsequently the police issued
a notice to the petitioner No.1 on 5.5.2022 to be appeared
before the police on 9.5.2022. In meanwhile, the petitioner
also approached the High Court at Writ Jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice
and subsequently the police registered the FIR on 24.5.2022.
Therefore, the petition was withdrawn as infructuous in view of
registering the FIR.
11. On perusal of the entire records, which clearly
reveals the interest of respondent No.2 for getting divorce from
the petitioner and getting permanent alimony of
Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- towards marriage
expenses apart from the maintenance of the child towards,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
education and other expenses. Absolutely, there is no serious
averments made by the respondent No.2 in the legal notice
issued on the first instance on 11.11.2021 and even in the
reply notice and the draft divorce petition also not stated
anything about the allegation or any ground, demand of dowry
etc., by the petitioner. In the legal notice, absolutely there is
no demand of dowry and harassment made by the petitioner in
respect of demand of any dowry in order to bring under the
explanation under '(a)' and '(b)' of Section 498(A) of IPC.
There must be demand prior to the marriage and acceptance in
order to attract Section 3 of the D.P. Act and subsequent to the
marriage, if any demand or additional demand towards dowry
or in laws, that attracts Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Absolutely,
there is no averment made in the legal notice issued by the
counsel for respondent No.2 on 11.11.2021. All these
complaints have been prepared only after filing the divorce
petition by the respondent No.2 and after marriage, the matter
referred to the BMC for conciliation. It is also an admitted fact
that subsequently the divorce petition is allowed by the family
Court. The divorce has been granted and respondent No.2 also
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and she is receiving
Rs.18,000/- per month towards the maintenance for child.
12. On perusal of the entire records, absolutely there is
no material or a cognizance offence made out against the
petitioners in order to investigate the matter. The intention of
filing a complaint through the Police on 4.5.2022 / 24.5.2022
only to receiving the maintenance etc and the permanent
alimony of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- towards the
marriage expenditure. Even the petitioner has agreed to
exchange the ornaments. The payment of the actual marriage
expenses or the exchange of the golden ornaments given to her
by the petitioner side and return the furniture. On perusal of
the same, it is merely for getting back the dowry articles or any
other articles given at the time of marriage and getting the
marriage expenditure nothing else is for investigation. Such
being the case, I am of the view, absolutely there is no case for
investigating the matter except the exchange of the articles
given and taken by the respondent No.2 and petitioner at the
time of marriage. Therefore I am of the view, it is not a fit case
for investigating the matter which is nothing but abuse of
process of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7806
of decisions in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &
Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 141. Therefore, the petition deserves to be
allowed.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The FIR against the petitioners in Crime No.64/2022
registered by the Mysuru City Women Police Station, Mysuru is
hereby quashed.
The respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the articles in
accordance with law and the petitioner is directed to return the
articles and exchange with respondent No.2.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
CT:SK
