Karnataka High Court
Sri Nipun Gupta vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
CRL.P No. 7872 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7872 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NIPUN GUPTA
S/O V.K.GUPTA
AGED 32 YEARS
2. SRI V.K.GUPTA
S/O LABHU RAM GUPTA
AGED 69 YEARS
3. SMT MAYADEVI
W/O V.K.GUPTA
AGED 58 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally signed NO. 105-B, POCKET NO.3,
by VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M DILSHAD GARDEN,
Location: HIGH NEAR SEEMAPURI,
COURT OF JILMI, EAST DELHI,
KARNATAKA
NEW DELHI - 110095
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ROSHAN H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560100
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
CRL.P No. 7872 of 2021
2. SMT SHIPRA GARG
W/O NIPUN GARG
AGED 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO B-1
WILSA AJMEERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE - I
BENGALURU - 560100
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1
SRI K.S.RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6271/2020
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU
(CR.NO.399/2019 OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506 OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by accused no.1 to 3 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings
in C.C.No.6271/2020 pending on the file of IX Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime
No.399/2019 registered by Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offences
under Sections 498(A) and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act ('D.P.Act' for short).
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent no.1-State and counsel for respondent no.2-
complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint
filed by respondent no.2 to the police is that the
complainant was married to accused no.1 on 01.05.2015,
which was love-cum-arranged marriage at Faridabad,
Haryana in a resort. Prior to that there was engagement
ceremony, towards which the father of the complainant
had spent Rs.1 ½ lakhs. At the time of marriage golden
ornaments, diamond articles, house hold articles and more
than Rs.10 lakhs was given to the accused as dowry.
Subsequently accused no.1 to 3 started harassing
respondent no.2 physically and mentally and made her
serve in the home even though she was traveling for three
hours for attending her duty. They imposed some
conditions that all her salary should be paid to the accused
persons and that she should not go to her parents house
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
and the entire expenditure of the marriage shall be borne
by the parents of the complainant. The entire expenses
towards the marriage was borne by the complainant's
father and gold ornaments were given. However there
was some quarrel between the husband and wife, where
accused no.1 is said to have pushed the complainant due
to which she suffered slip disc and therefore she was
unable to travel for long hours. Accused no.1 to 3 insisted
her to do all the house hold work and insisted her to bring
hot water from the terrace and when she went there,
accused no.3 is said to have abused her and thrown gas
cylinder on her, but she somehow escaped. It is also
stated that accused no.3 insisted her to give all the
amount and the bank account was opened in the joint
name of accused no.1 and the complainant. The accused
persons insisted for money and the gold items and it is
stated that gold and money as per their demand were not
given. However in 2016, accused no.1 and the
complainant were transferred to Bengaluru on duty for
three years. During that time accused no.1 and the
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
complainant resided at Bengaluru in a rented house.
Accused no.1 harassed the complainant physically and
mentally and she was thrown out of the house and he
vacated the house without her knowledge and made
various allegations. The police after registering the FIR,
conducted investigation and filed charge sheet, which is
under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that
there is no specific allegation against the accused persons,
except the omnibus allegations. Accused no.2 and 3 have
never resided at Bengaluru with accused no.1 and the
complainant. The complainant has also filed a transfer
petition in the Civil Court and transferred the divorce case
filed by accused no.1 to Haryana. The complaint came to
be filed only after divorce petition came to be filed by
accused no.1 and even in the divorce case, the
complainant came for settlement where the accused no.1
agreed to pay Rs.40,00,000/-, but the same was not
materialized since they have imposed some conditions.
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
Therefore settlement was not done and therefore there is
no serious allegations against the accused persons.
Therefore the continuing proceedings against the accused
persons is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence he
prayed for allowing the petition. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel relied upon the latest
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Vs.
State of MP - Crl.A.1457/2015 dated 31.08.2023.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has objected
the petition contending that on perusal of the charge sheet
materials, there is serious allegation and specific
allegations against each of the accused persons. Accused
no.2 demanded the money and all the golden ornaments
and dowry materials were kept in his custody and he only
abused the complainant in the public as prostitute and also
contended that accused no.2 insisted to open a joint
account in the name of accused no.1 and the complainant
in order to be used by them. They have also used the
debit card for debiting the money from her account and
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
accused no.2 harassed the complainant while they were in
the house. It is the specific allegation against accused
no.3 that she threw the gas cylinder on the complainant,
but somehow she escaped. All the three accused persons
insisted her to do all the house hold work even though
there was fracture on her hip and she was not allowed to
take rest. Even when she went to her parents house, she
was not allowed to stay there. The accused persons
insisted her to give her entire salary to them. There was
continuous harassment by accused no.1 to 3 on the
complainant. There are specific allegations against them.
Therefore the matter requires trial and the complaint
against them cannot be quashed and prays for dismissing
the petition.
6. High Court Government Pleader also supported
the case of respondent no.2 stating that there are specific
allegations against accused no.2 and 3 and therefore
sought for dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
complaint, it reveals that though this is love-cum-arranged
marriage between accused no.1 and the complainant,
during the course of marriage negotiations, the accused
persons insisted for more gold and silver articles from the
complainant's parents, which were given at the time of
marriage. Apart from that, after marriage there was
continuous physical and mental harassment by accused
no.1 to 3 in the marital home at Delhi. It is also stated by
her in the complaint, though it is lengthy complaint, that
there was quarrel between accused no.1 and the
complainant. He had pushed her due to which she has
sustained injury and she was not allowed to take rest and
was made to do all the house hold work apart from her
office work. Therefore she wanted to stay in her parents
house, but she was not allowed by the accused persons
and she used to come back in the night and do all the
house hold work and they used to demand her to pay her
entire salary to them. Accused no.2 is said to have
insisted her to open a joint account in the name of
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
accused no.1 and complainant and the account is said to
be operated by accused no.1. Accused no.2 is also said to
have abused her in filthy language in public talking that
she is a prostitute. That apart, there is a specific
allegation that the complainant was asked to bring hot
water from the terrace as the geyser was under repair. At
that time, she was abused in filthy language and accused
no.3 threw gas cylinder on the complainant. However she
managed to escape. Subsequently, the accused no.1 and
respondent no.2 were transferred to Bengaluru in the year
2016 and stayed for three years in Bengaluru. During that
time there was continuous quarrel between them and the
parents of accused no.1 i.e., accused no.2 and 3 when
they visited them at Bengaluru. They harassed the
complainant. Therefore she was forced to shift to the
official quarters for a short period. At that time accused
no.1 sold all the house hold articles without the consent of
the complainant and left the house without intimating her,
and filed a divorce case in Delhi. Of course there was
some negotiation between accused no.1 and the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
complainant in the Family Court at Faridabad, after
transfer of the case by Hon'ble Supreme Court to Family
Court at Faridabad, but the settlement was not arrived at
and there was some dispute between them. However
respondent no.2 also submits that more than Rs.30 Lakhs
was spent towards marriage expenses and all the
materials, gold ornaments, utensils, apart from cash are in
the house of the accused and are not returned back. Even
though the police investigated the matter and filed the
charge sheet, the investigating officer did not choose to
seize these articles and submit them to the court by filing
the property file (PF). There is lapse on the part of the
investigating officer in not seizing the materials. Even
otherwise keeping the dowry articles by the accused
attracts Section 6 of the D.P.Act. Though charge sheet is
not filed for Section 6 of the D.P.Act, the Trial Court can
frame the charges for Section 6 of the D.P.Act also. There
is demand of dowry and subsequent to marriage also there
is demand of dowry, which attracts Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
the D.P.Act. Apart from that there is continuous allegation
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
by respondent no.2 against the accused persons in the
complaint. The statement of the parents of the
complainant reveals that there was demand and
acceptance of dowry and continuous harassment by the
accused persons. It even went to the stage that the
accused persons did not leave the second respondent to
attend the funeral ceremony of her brother who had
sustained injuries in an accident. Such inhuman conduct
of the accused persons are seen. Such being the case,
even the Supreme Court has held in the case of Abhishek
(supra), where this court is aware that when there is no
specific allegation against the accused persons and there
is only omnibus allegation against the accused persons,
the court can quash the FIR and even the charge sheet.
This court also invoked the provisions of Section 482
Cr.P.C. and quashed various FIRs and charge sheets in
many cases, but the facts and circumstances in this case
there are specific allegations against accused no.1 to 3 by
second respondent and her family members. Therefore I
am of the view that when specific allegations are made,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
the matter requires for trial. It all depends on the matter
other than in respect of settlement etc., the petitioners
and the respondent can appear for settlement before the
Family Court. This court cannot conduct mini trial while
sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C. Even the second
respondent has stated that due to harassment she was
forced to think about committing suicide three or four
times and was avoided by looking at her parents faces.
8. It is submitted by the petitioners counsel that the
entire allegations made is at Delhi and not at Bengaluru.
The offence under Section 498(A) IPC., is continuing
offence, where Delhi Court also gets jurisdiction and both
accused no.1 and 2 have resided for three years in
Bengaluru and it is only during the COVID period they left
Bengaluru. Such being the case, Bengaluru police also
gets jurisdiction for investigating the matter as per Section
178 of Cr.P.C.
9. Such being the case, I am of the view that this is
not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. The
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43797
petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly petition is
dismissed.
The interim order as granted by this court is hereby
vacated. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any
observations made by this Court.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
sd
