Karnataka High Court
Vinod vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:569
CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3701 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. VINOD,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDAPPA,
R/AT NO.2, S.J.P LAYOUT,
NAGONDANAHALLI COLONEY,
WHITE FIELD,
BANGALORE - 560 066.
2. SRI. GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
DODDANAHALI VILLAGE,
SHAPURA POST, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
Digitally signed
by YAMUNA K
L 3. SMT. CHOWDAMMA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
KARNATAKA W/O GOVINDAPPA,
DODDANAHALI VILLAGE,
SHAPURA POST,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
4. MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATHA B.H.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
BODHANAHOSAHALLI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:569
CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
5. SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O OBHANNA,
MARUTHI LAYOUT,
MALUR, KOLAR - 563 160.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.N. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY VIRTHUR POLICE,
VIRTHUR,
BANGALORE - 560 087.
2. SHOBA @ PALLAVI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT GUNJUR PALYA,
GUNJUR POST,
VIRTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 087.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.C. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.74/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND
SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:569
CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in crime
No.74/2016 pending on the file of II Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offences
punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Facts leading to the case as under:
The marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent
No.2/Complainant was solemnised on 25.09.2015.
Respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint with the
jurisdictional police station, alleging that the petitioners
have harassed and tortured her and have also demanded
dowry. Respondent No.2 has also contended that
petitioners No.1 to 3 were demanding a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase a car and as respondent No.2
failed to meet the demands of the petitioners, it is alleged
NC: 2024:KHC:569
in the complaint that she was thrown out of the marital
home on 15.03.2016. The present complaint was lodged
on 24.03.2016 against the petitioners.
3. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners No.2
and 3 are the in-laws of respondent No.2 and respondents
No.4 and 5 are the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1.
4. On reading the complaint, this Court is more
than satisfied that no case is made out insofar as
petitioners No.2 to 5 are concerned. It would be useful for
this Court to cull out the relevant paragraph of the
complaint. The same is culled out as under:
"ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 21 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ
ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ EzÉà ZÀ£À߸ÀAzÀæzÀ £ÁUÉÆAqÀº½À î PÁˉÉÆäAiÀÄ°è
¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ®
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉݪÀÅ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ºÀÄlÆÖgÁzÀ PÉÆÃˉÁgÀ fˉÉèAiÀÄ
zÉÆqÀغÀ½îAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÁ £ÁªÀÅ DUÁUÀ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ."
5. On reading the entire allegations made in the
complaint, even if these allegations are accepted in its
entirety, this Court is of the view that no case is made out
against petitioners No.2 to 5. If respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:569
No.2/complainant as per her own version of the complaint,
post solemnization of marriage has spent 21 days at her
parental house with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and
thereafter they have moved to a rented house in
Bangalore, the complaint lodged against the in-laws and
relatives prima facie appears to lack bona fides. Even if
the entire allegations are accepted in its entirety, no
offence is made out against petitioners No.2 to 5. If the
length of marital life spent by respondent No.2 is looked
into, the prosecution can continue only against petitioner
No.1/Husband, as it is borne out from the allegations in
the complaint that the in-laws and other relatives had no
access to petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2/complainant. It is also borne out from the records
that petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 are residents of Kolar, while
petitioner No.4 is found to be residing in Bangalore.
6. The Supreme Court, along with numerous High
Courts, in plethora of judgments, has consistently upheld
the principle that vague and general allegations in cases
NC: 2024:KHC:569
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 wife and family 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.
7. In light of this backdrop, considering the
specific case at hand, where the complainant-wife lived in
parental house for only 21 days and subsequently shifted
to a rented house in Bangalore, it becomes imperative to
analyze the relevance of harassment allegations against
the in-laws. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the
NC: 2024:KHC:569
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.
8. In the light of discussion made supra, if the
criminal prosecution is allowed to continue against
petitioners No.2 to 5, the same would amount to abuse of
process. On these set of allegations, the criminal
prosecution cannot be permitted to proceed against
petitioners No.2 to 5. At this juncture, it is brought to the
notice of this Court that petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is no
more. Therefore, the proceedings stand abated insofar as
petitioner No.2 is concerned.
7. In the light of discussion made supra, I proceed
to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:569
ORDER
i. The criminal petition is allowed-in-part.
ii. The criminal proceedings pending in crime
No.74/2016 on the file of II Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, insofar
petitioners No.3 to 5 stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT:SNN
