Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gowramma H R vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23689
CRL.P No. 3699 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3699 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA H.R
W/O H.M.RUDRAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, KALLESWRA KRUPA
12TH CROSS, NEAR NATIONAL
PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHIVAPURA
N.G.HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 073.
2. SMT. ANITHA H.R
W/O B. SIDDAVEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.98/B, 4TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, BAPUJI NAGAR
BANGALURU - 560 026.
3. SRI B. SIDDAVEERAIAH
S/O BALAIAH
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
by KIRAN
KUMAR R R/AT.NO.98/B, 4TH CROSS
Location: HIGH 2ND CROSS, BAPUJI NAGAR
COURT OF BANGALURU - 560 026.
KARNATAKA
4. SMT. RADHIKA
W/O KALINGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
5. SRI KALINGARAJ
S/O OMKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
6. SRI RUDRESH H.R
S/O LATE REVANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23689
CRL.P No. 3699 of 2017
PETITIONER NO.4,5,6 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.580, 6TH CROSS
KAVIKA LAYOUT BAPUJI NAGAR
BANGALURU - 560 026.
7. MIS SHANTHA H.R
D/O LATE REVANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
8. SMT. RUDRAMMA
W/O LATE REVANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
9. SMT. KAMALLAMMA
W/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO. 7, 8, 9 ARE
RESIDING AT HIREJAMBUR VILLAGE
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 427.
10. SMT. NIRMALA
W/O MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT BOGI VILLAGE
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 427.
11. SMT SUMANGALA @ MANJULA
W/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MAYATHAMMANAMUCHUDI
SHIKARIPUR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 427.
12. SRI ANANDA
S/O LATE REVANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT HIREJAMBUR VILLAGE
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 427.
13. SMT. LALITHA H.R
W/O G.U. AJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:23689
CRL.P No. 3699 of 2017
14. SRI G.U. AJJAPPA
S/O G.U. UJJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO.13 AND 14 ARE
R/AT NO.1544, 7TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, VINOBHA NAGAR
DAVANAGERE - 570 021.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PEENYA POLICE STATION
BANGALURU - 560 058.
2. H.M. RUDRAKUMAR
S/O MAHESWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ADVOCATE AND SPCIAL
PROSECUTOR, MAMATHA
APARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR
4TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI YASHWANTH C.R, ADV., FOR
SRI K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PCR NO.9434/2016 AND CRIME NO.957/2016
PENDING BEFORE THE IV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging initiation of
proceedings under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the
NC: 2024:KHC:23689
offences under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
Sections 406, 420 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
2. The complaint that was presented indicated that in
the criminal proceedings initiated by wife, assertions were
made that dowry was given and, therefore, she was guilty
of an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It was also alleged that the wife and her relatives were in
the habit of cheating people and were thus guilty of the
offences under Sections 420, 406 and 149 of the IPC.
3. Pursuant to the investigation, a charge sheet has
been laid in which there is no charge made in respect of
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, it is
alleged that the wife abused the husband and also
contended that she had married him only to secure his
property and had demanded that the property be
transferred in her name, failing which she would initiate
cases against him.
NC: 2024:KHC:23689
4. A reading of the complaint as well as the chargesheet
would indicate that they do not relate to each other in any
manner. The allegation that the wife had told the husband
that she had married him only for the purpose of securing
his property cannot attract the offence under Section 420
or 406 of the IPC, especially when it is not the case of the
husband that he had parted with any property. The marital
discord between the husband and wife cannot be a cause
for the husband to initiate criminal proceedings against the
wife and her relatives under Sections 406 or 420 of the
IPC. I am therefore of the view that the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners cannot be sustained, and
the same are accordingly quashed.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
