Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shamala @ G Shyamala Bai vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1856
CRL.P No. 6844 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6844 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHAMALA @ G SHYAMALA BAI
W/O ANANTHA RAO
D/O LATE S GOPALA KRISHNA
AGED 46 YEARS
2. SRI MOHAN RAO @ MOHAN RAO
S/O ANANTHA RAO
AGED 22 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.7,
4TH B CROSS, KANAKANAGAR,
SULTHAN PALYA, BENGALURU CITY
BENGALURU - 560 032
Digitally ...PETITIONERS
signed by
ALBHAGYA (BY SRI. SRINIVASA T, ADVOCATE)
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR
STATE BY SHO BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU - 70
2. SMT. NALINI BAI S
W/O SHAM RAO,
D/O SHIVAJI RAO
AGED 37 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1856
CRL.P No. 6844 of 2021
R/AT 87, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD
2ND MAIN, 2ND BLOCK,
NEAR LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE,
THYAGARAJANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 028
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.AJAY KADKOL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1, BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.21871/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF
IPC AND SECTION 3,4,6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by in-laws of defacto
complainant/respondent No.2 seeking quashing of the
proceedings pending in C.C.No.21871/2019 for the
NC: 2024:KHC:1856
offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section
34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing
reliance on the judgment rendered by the coordinate
Bench rendered in Crl.P.No.4325/2022 would bring to the
notice of this Court that the proceedings are already
quashed against the husband of respondent No.2 who is
none other than the son of petitioners herein. If the
proceedings for the offences punishable under Section
498(A), 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, and 6
of Dowry Prohibition Act are already quashed against the
husband, he would contend that the captioned petition
deserves to be allowed and the proceedings are liable to
be quashed even against the petitioners herein.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and
learned HCGP.
4. Para 6 and 7 of the judgment rendered by the
coordinate Bench while quashing the proceedings against
NC: 2024:KHC:1856
the petitioner would be relevant and the same reads as
under:
"6. The marriage of the accused No.1 with the
defacto complainant was solemnized on 15.4.2007.
The defacto complainant had filed a petition under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women From
Domestic Violence Act in the year 2015 seeking
maintenance from the accused No.1, however, the
same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the
petitioner-accused No.1 filed a petition in MC
No.4583/2018 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolving his marriage on the
ground of cruelty, and the defacto complainant
entered appearance on 11.12.2018. After appearing
in the proceeding initiated by the accused No.1 for
dissolving the marriage, the defacto complainant
lodged the FIR, which clearly implies that, the FIR
was lodged to falsely implicate the petitioner-accused
No.1, and to circumvent the petitioner from
proceeding with the dissolving his marriage. The FIR
was lodged suppressing the pendency of the petition
for dissolving the marriage, and also withdrawal of
the petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women From Domestic Violence Act.
7. The dispute between the parties arises out
of marital discord, however, given criminal texture
NC: 2024:KHC:1856
Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be
an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in CC
No.21871/2019 arising out of Crime No.124/2019
pending on the file of the learned XXXVII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as
it relates to the petitioner-accused No.1 is hereby
quashed."
5. In the light of the findings recorded by the
coordinate Bench while quashing the proceedings against
the husband, the proceedings for the above said offences
against the in-laws of respondent No.2 is also liable to be
quashed.
6. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal petition is allowed;
NC: 2024:KHC:1856
(ii) The proceedings pending in
C.C.No.21871/2019 on the file of the learned
XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
