Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 176 (KAR)

Srinivasachar v. State by Women’s Police Station

2010-02-10

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2010
Judgment : In this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners 1 to 8 who have been arraigned as accused 1 to 8 in C.C.No.4868/2004 on the file of VI Additional C.M.M., Bangalore have sought for quashing the proceedings initiated against them in the said case. 2. Respondent No.2 herein Smt. Nagaveni is the complainant before the Women’s Police Station, Ulsoor Gate, Bangalore. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner, while the second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner, in other words the mother-in-law of the complainant. Petitioners 3 to 5 are the sisters and petitioners 6 to 8 are the brothers-in-law of the first petitioner. The second respondent herein lodged the complaint before the first respondent-police on 20.10.2003 alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against her husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and their respective husbands. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered case in Crime No.68 of 2003 and took up investigation. After the investigation, the first respondent-police filed charge-sheet against all these petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears during the investigation, petitioners 2 to 8 apprehending their arrest in connection with this case, obtained an order of anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional Court and they continued to remain on bail. Accused 1/first petitioner was arrested during the investigation and subsequently enlarged on bail. After filing of the charge-sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged in the charge-sheet and directed issue of summons to all the petitioners. Accused 1/first petitioner was arrested during the investigation and subsequently enlarged on bail. After filing of the charge-sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged in the charge-sheet and directed issue of summons to all the petitioners. After coming to know of the filing of the charge-sheet and the order of the learned Magistrate directing issue of summons to them, the petitioners presented this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of the criminal proceedings launched against them inter alia on the grounds that the incident alleged in the complaint, prima facie appears to have occurred in Hassan District and the complainant as well as her parents were also residents of Hassan District and the matrimonial house of the complainant is at Channarayapatna in Hassan District as such the police and the Court at Bangalore have no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case and to try the case for any such offence as such the entire proceedings is vitiated and liable to be quashed. It is also contended that even the reading of the complaint as a whole do not make out a case against any of the petitioners for the alleged offences and the complaint is a mala fide one, filed only with a view to harass the petitioners to coerce them to pay money to the complainant. It is also contended that the allegation made in the charge-sheet as well as the evidence collected during the investigation and produced along with the charge-sheet do not make out any case against petitioners 3 to 8 who are the sisters and brothers-in-law of the husband of the complainant and that the complainant with a mala fide intention, has falsely implicated all the family members of her husband in the complaint and that petitioners 3 to 8 had, at no point of time interfered in the matrimonial matters of the complainant and her husband as such on the basis of the vague allegations made against the petitioners 3 to 8, no case is made out against them, therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. The respondent-police is represented by the learned Government Pleader. I have heard both sides and perused the records. 5. 4. The respondent-police is represented by the learned Government Pleader. I have heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, further contended that the Court at Bangalore had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged as the offences alleged in the complaint stated to have been committed only in Hassan District and therefore the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Bangalore are liable to be quashed. In this behalf, he sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another AIR 2004 SC 4286 ; (2004) 8 SCC 100 ; 2004 SCC (Cri.) 2124; 2004 Cri.L.J. 4180 (SC); 2004 (3) Crimes 227 (SC); 2004 AIR SCW 4788. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint as well as the evidence collected by the police during the investigation and produced along with the charge-sheet do not make out any case against petitioners 3 to 8 who are sisters and brothers-in-law of the first petitioner and therefore proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected during the investigation and produced along with the charge-sheet prima facie indicate that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Women’s Police Station, Ulsoor Gate, Bangalore and within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, therefore, on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, the proceeding cannot be quashed. According to the learned Government Pleader the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners have no bearing to the facts and circumstances of the case since in the said case as observed by the Supreme Court, the allegations made in the complaint did not indicate that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Police Station where the complaint had been lodged. It is further submitted that the evidence produced before the learned Magistrate along with the charge-sheet prima facie make out a cause for offences alleged against all the petitioners as such there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 7. It is further submitted that the evidence produced before the learned Magistrate along with the charge-sheet prima facie make out a cause for offences alleged against all the petitioners as such there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 7. I have bestowed my serious consideration to the submission made on both sides. As noticed earlier there is no serious dispute of inter se relationship between the petitioners on the one hand and the complainant on the other. It is also not in serious dispute that the parental as well as matrimonial home of the complainant are in Hassan District. There appears to be no serious dispute that petitioners 3 and 6 are also residents of Hassan District. Petitioners 4, 7 and 8 are residents of Bangalore while petitioner 5 is resident of Mandya Town. No doubt as held by the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith’s case, if the complaint does not constitute the offence at the place where the complaint was lodged and the charge-sheet was filed and if no part of cause of action arose within the said jurisdiction, the proceedings initiated in such places can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as noticed earlier was that no part of cause of action arose in Bangalore, therefore, the Woman Police in Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case and to file the charge-sheet and that the Court at Bangalore had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged in such charge-sheet. 8. For the purpose of finding out whether or not the allegations made in the complaint indicate that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Women’s Police Station, Ulsoor Gate, Bangalore, I have perused the complaint filed by the second respondent before the police at Bangalore. 8. For the purpose of finding out whether or not the allegations made in the complaint indicate that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Women’s Police Station, Ulsoor Gate, Bangalore, I have perused the complaint filed by the second respondent before the police at Bangalore. Though the major portion of the allegations made in the complaint related to the demand of dowry said to have been made by these petitioners during the pre-marriage talks held in the house of the elder sister of the complainant in Hassan District and the alleged act of ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to the complainant in the matrimonial house in Channarayapatna, the complaint also contains allegation that on 15.4.2003, there was a quarrel between the complainant on the one hand and her husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law on the other hand in respect of their demand for dowry for Rs.50,000/- in cash and thereafter, petitioner 1 took the complainant to Bangalore stating that she is being taken to his sister’s house in Bangalore but he brought her to the house of her maternal uncle Sri. P.N. Venkatachar, R/o. 241, K.N. Pura, Bangalore and in the house of the maternal uncle, the first petitioner alleged to have left the complainant there stating that unless dowry of Rs.50,000/- in cash is brought she should not come back to the matrimonial house and also demanded that the said dowry should be paid within one week. Thus, the allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out that a part of cause of action arose in Bangalore within the jurisdiction of Women’s Police Station, Ulsoor Gate, Bangalore. Therefore, the Police before whom the complaint was lodged, prima facie had territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and investigate the allegations made therein. Accordingly, the police registered the case, investigated the matter and thereafter filed the charge-sheet, based on which the Court at Bangalore took cognizance for the offences alleged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the police and the Court at Bangalore had no territorial jurisdiction as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Reading of the facts of the report case in Y. Abrahma Ajith indicate that in the complaint filed therein, there was no allegation of any part of the cause of action having arisen at the place where the complaint was lodged. Reading of the facts of the report case in Y. Abrahma Ajith indicate that in the complaint filed therein, there was no allegation of any part of the cause of action having arisen at the place where the complaint was lodged. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Police Station where the complaint was lodged and the Court therein had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case and therefore, it was held that the proceedings were liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, prima facie allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation revealed that a part of cause of action arose in Bangalore and therefore the Court at Bangalore has territorial jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Court in Bangalore has no territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the said contention is rejected. 9. As noticed above, petitioners 3 to 5 are the sisters while petitioners 6 to 8 are the husbands of the sisters of the first petitioner. They are all married daughters of second petitioner and they have been admittedly residing in their respective matrimonial homes. 10. Now by catena of decisions the principles relating exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint or criminal proceedings are well-settled. According to these principles a complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, or when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. The ultimate test is whether the allegations in the complaint are make out criminal offence or not. (See M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v M/s. NEPC India Limited and Others AIR 2006 SC 2780 : (2006) 6 SCC (Cri) 188: 2006 (3) Crimes 182: 2006 AIR SCW 3830). 11. I have closely perused the allegations made in the complaint as well as the evidence collected by the police during investigation and produced along with the charge-sheet in order to find out whether a case is made out against petitioners 3 to 8 who are the relatives of the husband of the complainant. The perusal of the allegations made in the complaint indicates that the case as alleged against the petitioners 3 to 8 is highly vague and it indicates that the complainant has deliberately roped in all the sisters and brothers-in-law of her husband also in the case with a view to coerce her husband and also mother-in-law, to come to her terms. Except vague allegations made against petitioners 3 to 8 no specific overt act is attributed against them in the complaint. The statements of material witnesses said to have been recorded by the Investigation Officer during investigation are also in line with the allegations made in the complaint. Admittedly petitioners 3 to 8 are not residing with petitioners 1 and 2 and the complainant at any time after the marriage of the complainant and the first petitioner. Petitioners 3 to 5 have been residing independently in their respective matrimonial homes. Merely because petitioners 3 to 5 are the sisters of the husband of the complainant, it cannot be presumed that they are also involved in the alleged cruelty and harassment meted out to her. Petitioners 3 to 5 have been residing independently in their respective matrimonial homes. Merely because petitioners 3 to 5 are the sisters of the husband of the complainant, it cannot be presumed that they are also involved in the alleged cruelty and harassment meted out to her. In fact, according to the allegations made in the complaint it was her husband who brought her to Bangalore stating that he would take her to his sister’s house in Bangalore but instead she was taken to her maternal uncle’s house. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case against petitioners 3 to 8 are too vague and actuated with mala fides and they have been included in the case only because they are related to the husband of the complainant. In several decisions, the Apex Court as well as this Court has noticed the tendency of the married women robbing in all the relatives of her husband in such complaints only with a view to harass all of them though they are not even remotely involved in the offences alleged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out against the petitioners 3 to 8. The learned Magistrate while taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of C.P.C. upon the police reported filed under Section 173, is required to apply his judicious mind to the allegations made in the charge-sheet as well as the evidence collected during the investigation and produced along with the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. while finding out whether, any case is made out against any of the accused persons for any of the offences alleged. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate appears to have not applied his judicious mind to the materials produced before him along with charge-sheet by the jurisdictional Police before proceeding to take cognizance of the offences alleged against petitioners 3 to 8. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate is not justified in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against petitioners 3 to 8. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against petitioners 3 to 8 are liable to be quashed. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate is not justified in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against petitioners 3 to 8. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against petitioners 3 to 8 are liable to be quashed. However, the cognizance taken against the petitioners 1 and 2, having regard to materials available on record is justified and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against petitioners 1 and 2 who are husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed in part. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners 3 to 8 in C.C.No.4868 of 2004 on the file of XI Additional CMM, Bangalore are hereby quashed. The proceedings shall continue against petitioners 1 and 2. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order are tentative and made only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and it shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case against petitioners 1 and 2 nor their defence.