Karnataka High Court
Swaroop M S vs State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10161 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SWAROOP M.S.
S/O T.MANJUNATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. SMT. SHOBHA RAO,
W/O T.MANJUNATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3. T. MANJUNATHA RAO,
S/O LATE S.THUKKOJ RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT No.23/2,
MATHRUKRUPA, 11TH CROSS,
Digitally 80 FEET ROAD, GIRINAGAR,
signed by
KIRAN 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560 085.
KUMAR R ...PETITIONERS
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI. S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
COURT OF SMT. ANKITHA G.SHELKE, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR P.S.
BANGALORE-560 072
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
CRL.P No. 10161 of 2021
2. SMT. HARSHITHA BEDRE,
W/O SWAROOP M.S.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT No.261, PAAVANA
1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA.M., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.32372/2021 UNDER SECTION 498A
OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT PENDING BEFORE
THE V A.C.M.M., BENGALURU OF THE RESPONDENT No.1
POLICE I.E., ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER
COMMENSURATING WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The husband of the complainant and his parents are
before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated
against them for offences under Section 498A of the IPC,
read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
2. It is not in dispute that on 16.05.2019, the wedding
took place between the complainant and the 1st accused.
3. It is also not in dispute that on 26.04.2021, the wife
had lodged a complaint wherein she contended that she
had come out of her matrimonial house about three
months ago since her father was unwell, and that her
husband and in-laws were visiting her now and then. She
stated that on one day, when she went to her matrimonial
house with her parents, her husband and her in-laws did
not allow her to enter the house, following which she
requested the police to summon and advise them
accordingly. The police registered this complaint as a non-
cognizable report.
4. On the very next day i.e., on 27.04.2021, the
husband had, in turn, lodged a complaint with the police
against the wife and his in-laws, contending that the wife
and his in-laws were arriving at his house to create a
scene, after which he requested the police to summon and
advise them to not disturb him and his parents. In this
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
complaint, he also sated that his wife's behaviour was
improper and that she was in the habit of threatening his
parents that she would commit suicide and, despite
bringing this to the notice of his in-laws, no action had
been taken against her, as a consequence of which he had
dropped his wife back to her parents' house.
5. It may be pertinent to state here that in both these
complaints, neither the husband nor the wife made any
allegations about any dowry being demanded or paid. In
fact, a reading of said complaints would indicate that there
was a difference of opinion between the husband and the
wife in various aspects, and that they were residing
separately.
6. About three months thereafter, i.e., on 08/07/2021,
the husband initiated proceedings for dissolution of their
marriage in M.C.No.3165/2021 on the ground that he had
been treated cruelly by his wife, and in the week
immediately thereafter, on 15.07.2021, the wife lodged a
complaint that her husband and the in-laws demanded
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
dowry of Rs.25 lakhs in cash, 1 kg. of gold ornaments and
10 kgs of silver articles, and that after some negotiations,
a dowry of Rs.10 lakhs, 400 gms. of gold ornaments and 2
kgs. of silver articles were agreed to be given. She has
thereafter gone on to state that she was subjected to
continuous harassment by her husband and the in-laws,
and was thus constrained to approach the police. The
police on the basis of this complaint registered the FIR.
7. During the course of investigation, the police have
admittedly seized 24 gold articles and a cash of
Rs.56,500/- and 29 silver articles, apart from several
documents.
8. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been laid
against the husband and the in-laws.
9. Aggrieved by said proceedings, the husband and his
parents are before this Court.
10. In support of the arguments advanced, the following
citations have also been produced before this Court:
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
a. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P., (2018)
10 SCC 472 - the Supreme Court considered the
judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar1 vis-à-vis the
provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC and the
significant filing of frivolous petitions thereunder, to
frame guidelines in that regard;
b. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of
Bihar & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599: the Supreme
Court rendered findings on the absence of specific
allegations against the accused therein and quashed
the proceedings accordingly;
c. Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey & Ors. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Crl. Rev.
No.521 of 2021: the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498-
A of the IPC initiated as a counter-blast to the suit
filed by the husband for divorce and observed that
the same was a mere afterthought;
d. Nagesh Gundayal & Ors. v. the State and Ors.,
Crl.P. No.201257 of 2019 c/w Crl.P. No.200660
of 2019: a co-ordinate bench of this Court quashed
the proceedings initiated by the wife against her
husband and her in-laws in respect of cruelty and
dowry harassment, taking into consideration the fact
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273.
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
that the same was initiated after the wife received a
notice for divorce from the husband; and
e. Pramod R. S. v. the State of Karnataka & Anr.,
Crl.P. No. 1511 of 2023: a co-ordinate bench of
this Court held that the examination of a complaint in
terms of the offence(s) alleged (re: Section 307, the
IPC therein) is necessary and the ingredients of the
offence(s) alleged cannot be ignored merely because
such complaint was registered following a notice for
divorce.
11. It may be pertinent to state here that this petition
was filed in the year 2021 for quashing of the proceedings,
and about two years thereafter, the wife has, in fact,
initiated proceedings for restitution of her conjugal rights
in M.C.No.7357/2023 and it is stated that said proceedings
are still pending adjudication.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that initiation of criminal proceedings was
fundamentally because the husband had initiated
proceedings for dissolution of marriage. He submitted that
the fact that the wife had lodged a complaint on
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
26.04.2021 wherein there was absolutely no allegation
made in respect of dowry, and on the very next day, the
husband also lodged a complaint contending that the wife
and his in-laws were arriving at his house and creating a
scene, by themselves clearly establish that there could
have been no allegation of dowry made against the
husband and the in-laws.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that in the
criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court, an
application was made by the husband for release of the
articles seized by the police during investigation. He also
submitted that the husband had also filed an affidavit
before the learned Magistrate stating that he was claiming
only item Nos.5, 8, 10, 14, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 23, 24, 25,
46, 47, 50 and 52, and that he would be satisfied if those
articles were released and the wife could be permitted to
take possession of the remaining articles.
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
14. It may also be pertinent to state here that the wife
had also made an application to claim the articles that
were seized by the police during investigation.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the wife, however,
contended that there were abundant materials to justify
the prosecution against the husband and the in-laws. He
also submitted that pursuant to the investigation,
statements were recorded which clearly indicated that
there was indeed a demand for dowry, which had also
been paid, and there was thus no justification for
entertaining this petition.
16. As stated above, it is not in dispute that the wife did
give a complaint against the husband and her in-laws on
26.04.2021 and, at that point in time, she made no
allegations of any kind regarding a claim for dowry or for
such dowry having been paid. A reading of said complaint
would indicate at that point in time, all that the wife
wanted was to get back to her matrimonial home and for
the same, she sought the intervention of the police.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
17. This complaint was responded to by the husband
with a counter complaint, in which he stated that the wife
was misbehaving with him and with his parents, and that
she was thus sent back to her parents' home, but she had
come to their house along with her parents to create a
scene and started an altercation. These set of admitted
facts relating to the month of April, 2021 indicates that
there was no element of criminality involved in the
conduct of either of the parties. The fact that the
proceedings were initiated about three months thereafter,
for dissolution of their marriage, appears to be the spark
which has resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings
as a retaliatory measure.
18. The fact that the criminal proceedings were initiated
within a week after the initiation of proceedings for divorce
is, by itself, a clear indication that the entire act of lodging
a complaint was a retaliatory measure. In my view, since
the criminal proceedings were initiated after the initiation
of the proceedings for divorce and given the background of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
complaints and counter complaints in April, 2021 where
there were no allegations of any kind made regarding the
criminality exhibited by either of the parties, there is
absolutely no justification for sustaining the criminal
proceedings.
19. It is settled law that a criminal proceeding cannot be
utilised by either party to a marriage as a means of
securing relief which is not really related to any crime but
is only designed to pressurize the spouse into submission.
20. The statements which have been recorded by the
investigating authorities would have no relevance, given
the fact that at the earliest point in time (in April, 2021)
when there was admittedly a marital discord, no
allegations of dowry were made.
21. One other important factor to arrive at the above
inference is the initiation of proceedings seeking restitution
of conjugal rights by the wife after she had initiated
criminal proceedings for dowry harassment. In a case
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
where the wife, after initiation of criminal proceedings and
during the pendency of a criminal petition filed by her
husband seeking to quash said proceedings, decides to file
a petition for restitution of her conjugal rights, the only
inference that can be drawn is that the allegations that she
had made earlier regarding demand of dowry/dowry
harassment were untenable and was only a retaliatory
measure. The fact that the wife sought the intervention of
a Court to ensure that her conjugal rights were restored,
would by itself falsify her allegations regarding dowry
harassment.
22. I am therefore of the view that the entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioners are mala fide
and clearly abuse the process of the Court, and they are
liable to be quashed. Thus, the proceedings initiated
against the petitioners herein are accordingly quashed.
23. However, it is also to be noticed that the police
during the course of investigation did seize several gold
ornaments and the 1st petitioner has, by filing an affidavit
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25067
before the learned Magistrate, restricted his claim only in
respect of certain articles by producing supporting
documents to substantiate that he had purchased many of
them even before his marriage.
24. In my view, it would appropriate to direct the learned
Magistrate to release item Nos.5, 8, 10, 14, 14, 18, 19,
22, 23, 23, 24, 25, 46, 47, 50 and 52 (item Nos.14 and 23
were repeated, but the articles were different) mentioned
in the affidavit filed before the Magistrate in favour of the
husband as sought by him and to release the remaining
articles to the wife.
25. With the above observations, this petition is
allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
