Karnataka High Court
Dhanraj Wadeyar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 22 January, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
CRL.P No. 200426 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200426 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. DHANRAJ WADEYAR
S/O NAGAPPA WADEYAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. THANA KHUSNOOR, TQ. KAMALANAGAR,
DIST. BIDAR-585417.
2. LAKSHMIBAI WADEYAR
W/O DHANARAJ WADEYAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. THANA KHUSNOOR, TQ. KAMALANAGAR,
Digitally signed DIST. BIDAR-585417.
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI 3. HAREESH WADEYAR
Location: HIGH S/O DHANARAJ WADEYAR,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: PVT SERVICE,
KARNATAKA R/O. THANA KHUSNOOR, TQ. KAMALANAGAR,
DIST. BIDAR-585417.
4. MAHESH WADEYAR
S/O DHANARAJ WADEYAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. THANA KHUSNOOR, TQ. KAMALANAGAR,
DIST. BIDAR-585417.
5. JYOTI D/O BHIMSEN KUSHALKAR
W/O GIRISH WADEYAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
CRL.P No. 200426 of 2024
R/O. HIPPARGAON TQ. LOHAR,
DIST. OSMANABAD, MAHARASHTRA STATE
6. KOMAL WADEYAR
W/O HAREESH WADEYAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. THANA KHUSNOOR, TQ. KAMALANAGAR,
DIST. BIDAR-585417.
7. ARCHANA WADEYAR W/O MAHESH WADEYAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. THANA KHUSNOOR, TQ. KAMALANAGAR,
DIST. BIDAR-585417.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KAMALANAGAR PS,
REP. BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. GIRIJA
(W/O GIRISH WADEYAR)
D/O LAKSHMAN PAWAR (WADDAR),
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BEHIND I.B. GUEST HOUSE,
KAMALANAGAR,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI SHAMBULING S. SALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, I)
ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR AND
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.102/2023 CULMINATING IN C.C
NO.667/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 323, 494, 498-A, 504
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
CRL.P No. 200426 of 2024
R/W 149 O INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SEC 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT
REGISTERED BY THE KAMALANAGAR P.S RESPONDENT NO. 1
POLICE AND THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 19.04.2024
BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
AURAD- B 2) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT MIGHT DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed by
accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 to 10 in C.C.No.667/2024
pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Aurad-B, arising out of Crime No.102/2023 registered by
Kamalanagar Police Station, Bidar for offences punishable
under sections 323, 494, 498(a), 504 r/w section 34 of
IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, with a
prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid
case as against them.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
3. FIR in Crime No.102/2023 was registered by
Kamalanagar Police Station, Bidar for the aforesaid
offences against Geerish Dhanraj and 11 others on the
basis of the first information dated 22.10.2023 received
from respondent No.2 herein who is the wife of accused
No.1- Geerish Dhanraj.
4. The police after investigation have filed a charge
sheet as against 12 persons and the petitioners herein are
arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 to 10 in the charge
sheet. The trial court after taking cognizance of the
charge sheeted offences, has issued summons to the
accused persons. Being aggrieved by the impugned
criminal proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners herein are the relatives of accused No.1.
Undisputedly respondent No.2 has separated from her
husband about four years prior to registration of the FIR.
The allegation of abusing and assaulting first informant on
14.11.2022 is only as against accused No.1. There is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
absolutely no material as against the petitioners herein
which would attract the alleged offence punishable under
section 494 of IPC against them. So far as the offence
punishable under section 498A of IPC is concerned, the
allegation relates to four years prior to registration of FIR
and in view of section 468 of Cr.P.C, the trial court could
not have taken cognizance for the offence punishable
under section 498A of IPC against the petitioners.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader
and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the
petition.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ushaben vs. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and
Others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 353, the police have
jurisdiction to investigate the case even on a police
complaint for offence punishable under section 494 of IPC
if the complaint contains allegations which would attract
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
offence punishable under section 498A of IPC. The police
after investigation, have filed charge sheet against 12
persons and in the charge sheet, it is alleged that the
marriage of accused No.8 with accused No.1 was
performed by the accused persons since the first informant
had failed to bring dowry as demanded by them.
Therefore, there is material to proceed against all the
accused persons for offence punishable under section 494
of IPC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Perusal of the first information dated 22.10.2023
would go to show that the marriage of respondent No.2
with the accused No.1 was performed on 12.03.2018. In
the first information, it is stated that prior to four years
from the date of FIR, the first informant was thrown out
from her matrimonial house and ever since then she is
residing in her parent's house. Allegation against the
petitioners herein about ill treating the first informant in
the matrimonial house in furtherance of demand for
payment of dowry is for the period when the first
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
informant was staying in her matrimonial house. Section
468 of Cr.P.C provides for period of limitation for the court
to take cognizance of the offences.
Section 468 reads as follows:-
"Sec.468: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse
of the period of limitation: -
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this
Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence
of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the
expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be -
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable
with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but
not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of
limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried
together, shall be determined with reference to the
offence which is punishable with the more severe
punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe
punishment."
9. The offence under section 498A of IPC is punishable
with imprisonment for a period of three years. In view of
section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C, the period of limitation for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
taking cognizance for the offence under section 498A of
IPC is three years.
10. In the case on hand, the allegation as against the
petitioners herein which would attract the offence
punishable under section 498A of IPC is for the period
when the first informant was staying in her matrimonial
house which is undisputedly four years prior to the date of
registration of FIR.
11. Therefore, in my considered view that the trial court
could not have taken cognizance for the offence
punishable under section 498A and sections 3 & 4 of the
DP Act as against the petitioners.
12. Insofar as the second allegation with regard to the
incident that had taken place on 14.11.2022 is concerned,
perusal of the first information and the charge sheet would
go to show that this allegation is made by the first
informant only as against her husband who is accused
No.1 in the present case. Even in respect of the said
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
allegation, there is a delay of 10 months in approaching
the Police. The first information is submitted on
22.10.2023, whereas the alleged last incident wherein
accused No.1 had abused and assaulted the first informant
had taken place on 14.11.2022.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao1 at
paragraph No.30 has observed as follows:
"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 coloured version, 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."
(2008) 15 SCC 582
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
14. Therefore, the unexplained delay of about 11 months
in approaching the Police is also fatal to the case of the
prosecution and asking the near relatives of the accused
No.1 to stand trial for the alleged offences, when the
inordinate delay of 11 months is not properly explained,
would result in injustice.
15. So far as the offence punishable under section 494 of
IPC is concerned, perusal of the charge sheet material
would go to show that there is absolutely no material
available on record to show that the petitioners herein had
participated in the alleged marriage of accused No.1 with
accused No.8 which was performed on 09.12.2021 as
stated in the charge sheet. The police during the course of
investigation have not recorded the statement of any one
of the witness who participated in the marriage nor have
the police collected any material which prima facie would
go to show that marriage of accused No.1 with accused
No.8 was performed on 09.12.2021 at Osmanabad in
Maharashtra State as alleged in the charge sheet.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
16. In the absence of any material available on record to
prove which prima facie shows that the marriage of
accused No.1 with accused No.8 was performed as alleged
in the charge sheet on 09.12.2021, continuation of the
impugned criminal proceedings as against the petitioners
for the offences punishable under section 494 of IPC would
amount to abuse of process of law. Undisputedly the
petitioners are all residing in different places and asking
them to stand trial for the alleged offences, when the
charge sheet does not contain prima facie material as
against them for the charge sheeted offences, would
amount to abuse of process of law. Under these
circumstances, the following order:
ORDER
a) The Criminal petition is allowed.
b) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.667/2024
pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Aurad-B, arising out of Crime
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:395
No.102/2023 registered by Kamalanagar Police
Station, Bidar for offences punishable under
sections 323, 494, 498(a), 504 r/w section 34
of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, is hereby quashed as against the
petitioners herein.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DHA
CT:PK
