Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 220 (KAR)

Nazirkhan Machingal v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-24

P.G.M.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC No.2276/2016, pending on the file of JMFC I Court, Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and Section 34 of and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed the complaint on 19.03.2015 before the Mahila Police Station, Hubballi against the petitioners and accused No.1 her husband Firozkhan. She has alleged in the complaint that on 15.04.2019, she married accused 1-Firozkhan and accused 2 and 3 are his parents. Her parents have incurred Rs.15,00,000/- towards marriage expenses inclusive of gold ornaments and Dahej materials. After the marriage, when she went to the house of the husband at Santhoshnagar, Hubballi, parents of her husband did not al lowed her to come inside, as they did not approve the marriage of her with accused 1. Thereby accused 1. took a separate rented house for her at Akshay colony, Global Col lege, Near Shirur Park, Hubballi, where they stayed for about 8 and 9 months. She has further alleged that accused 2 and 3 visited the residence of the complainant and asked accused 1 to demand dowry from her and also gold from her parents. Thereafter, accused 1 started harassing her physically, demanding dowry. Accused 1 used to beat her demanding dowry. She has alleged that on 27.10.2019 at about 10.30 hours, al l the accused quarreled with her and driven her out from the house by coercing her to bring dowry. The police have recorded her statement on 19.03.2018 and registered the case against the petitioners and accused 1 on 20.03.2015. She has given further statement regarding the alleged payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. The police have also recorded the statement of certain witnesses and after completing the investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and accused 1 for the aforesaid offences and the case came to be registered in CC No.2276/2016 on the file of learned magistrate. 3. The petitioners have stated that the al legations are not against them. The petitioners at no point of time instigated her husband to bring money and gold. The police did not investigate the case in its proper perspective with regard to the allegations made in the complaint. 3. The petitioners have stated that the al legations are not against them. The petitioners at no point of time instigated her husband to bring money and gold. The police did not investigate the case in its proper perspective with regard to the allegations made in the complaint. The charge sheet witnesses CW3, CW7 and CW8 have stated that they heard about the incident from the father of the complainant. The complainant did not possess any material to show about the alleged injury suffered by her. The statement of the complainant saying that the petitioners did not al low her to come inside the house at Santhoshnagar, Hubballi and therefore accused 1 took her to rented house, shows that accused 1 and complainant were staying away from the petitioners. The complainant and her husband accuse 1 never stayed together with the petitioners in one roof . Therefore the initiation of the prosecution against the petitioners is abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP. None appear for respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant respondent No.2 herein had made similar complaint against the petitioners in a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and that the said proceedings were quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.106201/2015. The copy of the order is made available for perusal. 6. The learned HCGP submitted that CW7 and 8 are the witnesses who have spoken about the harassment by the accused persons on the complainant. However, it is seen that these witnesses have given statement on the information received from the father of the complainant. 7. It appears the complainant had made similar allegations in the petition filed under the provisions of D.V. Act. This Court has observed in the said case that there are no specific al legations against the petitioners who are in laws of the complainant suffering from old age and there was no prima facie case made out against the petitioners. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and it is futile exercise so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and it is futile exercise so far as the petitioners are concerned. The al legations made by the complainant in the petition filed under the provisions of D.V. Act are similar to the al legations made in the complaint in the present case. The complainant has stated in the complaint itself that after her marriage, when they went to the house of the petitioners, they did not al low her to come inside the house. Therefore her husband took separate rented house for her at Akshay colony, Hubballi, where they started residing separately. It is the case of the complainant herself that the petitioners herein were residing separately from herself and her husband. The entire material collected by the IO does not support the case of the prosecution that the petitioners demanded and insisting her to bring dowry. The allegations are only against accused 1. Considering the entire material, this Court holds that absolutely there are no material against the petitioners to initiate the proceedings against them for the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, amounts to abuse of process of law, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is herby al lowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC No.2276/2016 pending on the file of JMFC I Court, Hubballi, are hereby quashed.