Karnataka High Court
Gurushiddayya S/O Sannirayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7401
CRL.P No. 102835 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102835 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. GURUSHIDDAYYA
S/O. SANNIRAYYA CHOUKIMATH
AGE: 32 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. 103/ SANNIRAYYA G. CHOUKIMATH
VILLAGE MAIN ROAD
HAVANURU VILLAGE
TALUK: HAVERI
DISTRICT: HAVERI-5811108.
2. SHOBHA
W/O. SANNIRAYYA CHOUKIMATH
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE HOLD
R/O. 103/ SANNIRAYYA G. CHOUKIMATH
VILLAGE MAIN ROAD
HAVANURU VILLAGE
TALUK: HAVERI
Digitally
signed by DISTRICT: HAVERI-5811108.
MANJANNA
E
Location: 3. MEGHA
HIGH
COURT OF W/O. GURUSIDDAYYA CHOUKIMATH
KARNATAKA
AGE: 29 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE HOLD
HAVANURU VILLAGE MAIN ROAD
TALUK: HAVERI
DISTRICT: HAVERI-5811108.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH R. BADIGER AND M. R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE STATION)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7401
CRL.P No. 102835 of 2023
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD-580011
2. SMT. SANGEETA
W/O. VEERAYYA ALIAS IRAYYA CHOUKIMATH
AGE: 28 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE HOLD
R/O. HAANUR VILLAGE
TALUK: HAVERI
DISTRICT: HAVERI-581113
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, H.C.G.P. FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE CRIME
NO.0193/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SN. DN) AND CJM RANEBENNUR AGAINST THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS NO.1, 2 AND 3/WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED
NO.4, 2 AND 5 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
498(A), 504, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC, AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners-accused Nos.4, 2 and 5 respectively have filed
this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and
complaint in Cr.No.193/2023 of Ranebennur Rural Police
pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) and CJM,
Ranebennur.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution is as under:-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7401
The second respondent/defacto complainant-wife of
accused No.1 lodged the first information on 07.09.2023
alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and
accused Nos.2 to 5 are her in-laws. At the time of the
marriage, her parents had given dowry to the accused in the
form of cash and jewelry etc.,; accused No.2 is the mother of
accused No.1, accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1 and
accused No.5 is the wife of accused No.4. Accused No.1 and
respondent No.2 lived happily for few days after their marriage.
Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 alongwith
accused No.1 used to subject the second respondent to cruelty
both mentally and physically and also demanded her to bring
additional dowry from her parental house. On 02.09.2023, the
petitioners/accused forced the second respondent to leave the
matrimonial home. They assaulted her physically and
intentionally insulted her. Hence, she lodged the complaint.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
HCGP for respondent No.1-State.
4. Perused the complaint and FIR.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7401
5. The second respondent has specifically stated that she
was thrown out from the matrimonial home in the month of
September 2023. On 02.09.2023, the petitioners-accused
Nos.2 to 5 alongwith accused No.1 quarreled with her and
abused her in filthy language and also assaulted her. As per the
statement of the second respondent, the incident took place on
02.09.2023 and she has reported the incident to the
jurisdictional police on 07.09.2023. In the complaint,
respondent No.2/de-facto complainant has made certain
allegations against accused No.1 with regard to not providing
her the food, shelter and clothes etc., As per the contents of
the complaint, she was thrown out from the matrimonial home
and except the omnibus and general allegations, there are no
specific allegations against the petitioners(accused Nos.2, 4 and
5) as to how and in what manner, they subjected the second
respondent to cruelty both physically and mentally and also as
to how they demanded her to bring money from her parental
home.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF
A.P. v. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO reported in (2008) 15 SCC
582, at para 30 has held as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7401
"30. Time and again, the object and
importance of prompt lodging of the first
information report has been highlighted.
Delay in lodging the first information report,
more often than not, results in embellishment
and exaggeration, which is a creature of an
afterthought. A delayed report not only gets
bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the
danger of the introduction of a coloured
version, an exaggerated account of the
incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also creeps
in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity.
Therefore, it is essential that the delay in
lodging the report should be satisfactorily
explained."
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599, at para 18 has held as follows:
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
of section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without
analysing the long term ramifications of a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7401
trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left
unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this court by way
of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws
of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them."
8. In the absence of any materials to show that the
petitioners-accused Nos.4, 2 and 5 have subjected the second
respondent to cruelty both mentally and physically and also
that there was demand made by them to bring money from her
parental home, the allegations made by her is without any
substance.
9. Even otherwise, the incident took place on 02.09.2023
and the FIR was lodged on 07.09.2023 without offering any
plausible explanation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7401
10. In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of
the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners-accused
Nos.4, 2 and 5 would be an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The FIR and complaint in Crime No.193 of
2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil
Judge (Sr Dn) and CJM Court, Ranebennur,
registered by Ranebennur Rural police station
for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 504, 323 read with 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
insofar as it relates to the petitioners-accused
Nos.4, 2 and 5 are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MN
