Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1117 (KAR)

Kempe Gowda v. State of Karnataka

2015-09-22

RATHNAKALA

body2015
ORDER : Rathnakala, J. 1. Petitioners herein along with co-accused have been charge sheeted in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They are the in-laws, more precisely brother and sister-in-law of the husband of the complainant. 2. The specific allegations against the petitioners is, they insulted the husband of the complainant for marrying her for the reason that, otherwise he could have married some other girl with property and money. During August 2010, the petitioners visited the complainant and her husband at Hyderabad to invite them for the House warming ceremony of their house at Bangalore. At that time, the husband along with these petitioners abused the complainant verbally and necked her out of the house with her child. Though she requested to send the first child with her, they did not oblige, forcibly took that child with them. 3. It is the submission of Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the complainant lodged complaint against her husband and all the family members including the parents-in-law. But to the knowledge of the complainant, the father-in-law was missing from the year 2009 itself. When the matter was appraised to the Investigating Officer, the name of the father-in-law was dropped. Since there was no incriminating material against the mother-in-law, she was also given up at the time of filing charge sheet. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant, who is the main accused viz., Shanthaveerappa expired on 13.8.2014 after the charge sheet is filed. Now it is only the petitioners, who have to face the trial. In fact, the deceased Shanthaveerappa had married the elder sister of the complainant and had a male child from the marriage. On the death of the first wife in an accident in 2006, he married the complainant in the year 2007 and the couple had a male issue from the marriage. The petitioners were not at all invited for the marriage also and it was only for the first time, they had visited Shanthaveerappa and the complainant at their residence at Hyderabad for the purpose of inviting them for the House warming ceremony. Except the self-serving statement of the complainant, which is vague and absurd, there is no incriminating material against them in the charge sheet papers also. Except the self-serving statement of the complainant, which is vague and absurd, there is no incriminating material against them in the charge sheet papers also. The complaint allegation insofar as these petitioners are concerned, is not specific, lacking material particulars and the entire allegation is targeted against her deceased husband only. Continuing the prosecution on such clumsy and vague allegation and sketchy evidence is nothing but abuse of process of law, hence, the entire complaint and criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. In reply, Sri. M. Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant submits, the complaint averments are categorical in pointing out that these petitioners connived with Shanthaveerapa to torture the complainant. The Investigating Officer purposely has not recorded the statement of eyewitnesses in respect of the incident that occurred at Hyderabad. Even now it is not too late for the complainant to seek summons to the witnesses to prove the allegation against him. Very same petitioners had lodged a complaint against this complainant and her family members in respect of the offence under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC. When the complainant and family members approached this Court for quashing of the charge sheet, this Court directed them to work out remedy by seeking discharge before the Trial Court. Likewise this petition is also liable to be rejected and if the petitioners were to challenge the charge sheet, they have to work out remedy before the Trial Court by seeking discharge. 5. From the complaint, I find that the allegations centers around mainly against the husband and parents-in-law. It is only a solitary incident that occurred in August 2010 at Hyderabad, which is cited against the petitioners. Though at last para of the complaint it is stated that, the husband and in-laws demanded dowry and property, tortured the complainant physically and mentally, necked her out with her child from the matrimonial home, approached her at her residence, abused, assaulted and put threat, etc., the allegations lack the material particulars. They are general in nature without specification about date, time, place and what was that abusive language used by the petitioners. 6. They are general in nature without specification about date, time, place and what was that abusive language used by the petitioners. 6. The Apex Court in the matter of Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2015(4) SCALE 305 in an identical situation declined to draw inference, which would lead to conclusion that, the appellants before the Court could be held responsible for the offence in the nature of Section 498-A of IPC. In the said case, it was observed "in order to lodge a proper complaint mere mention of the Sections and the language of those Sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing the offence.....". In another matter in Neelu Chopra and Another v. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 , the husband died after the charge sheet was filed and the in-laws were before the Court seeking quashing of the FIR after charge sheet was filed. On noticing that the allegations were against the husband, who died subsequently, it was observed that it can be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of the husband on the basis of vague and general complaint, which is silent about the precise acts of the parents-in-law. 7. A stray incident of August 2010 that took place at Hyderabad is cited in the complaint of August 2011. That being so, it is a question of territorial jurisdiction. The incident which ought to have been complained to the local Police and have been investigated has been made use of, for the purpose of the present case. The allegations failed to make out a case against the petitioners either for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the absence of any material manifesting how these petitioners actively indulged in committing the said offence or rendered their connivance with the deceased husband of the complainant, I feel that allowing the proceedings to continue would be a sheer abuse of process of law and the entire complaint and the consequential charge sheet as against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR at Annexure-A and the consequential charge sheet at Annexure-D are hereby quashed.