Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 419 (KAR)

Shivaji v. Tarabai And Another

2020-02-13

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in Ilkal P.S. Crime No.6/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 109, 506, 498(A), 504, 143, 147, 149, 323 and 324 of IPC, pending on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hungund, Dist: Bagalkot. 2. That the petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.1, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents, petitioner Nos.4 and 10 are brothers and petitioner No.7 is the sister of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.5 is the sister of petitioner No.2, petitioner No.6 is the son of petitioner No.5, petitioner No.8 is wife of petitioner No.2s brother, petitioner No.9 is son of petitioner No.8. 3. It is alleged that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1. Their marriage took place on 11.05.2014 in front of the house of petitioner No.1 before the elders and well wishers of both the families. After marriage, the petitioner No.1 took the respondent No.1 to his house however she did not lead happy married life. She gave harassment to the petitioners more particularly to the petitioner No.1. There are various other allegations against the respondent No.1 more particularly as regards her illicit relationship. 4. The respondent No.1 by making false allegations had filed a private complaint in P.C.No.2/2015 before the learned JMFC Hungund, alleging that the petitioners had sought for dowry and used to beat her and burn her and pressurized her to make illicit relationship with other men. Respondent No.1 informed her parents to come and advise petitioner No.1. However, petitioner No.1 did not heed to their words and demanded further amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as also gold from her parents as dowry. Petitioner No.1 assaulted them and drove her out of the house on 20.10.2014. It is also alleged that on 02.01.2015, at the instigation of petitioner No.2 and 10, other petitioners came to her parents house at Balakundi and took quarrel with them. On this basis a case in Crime No.6/2015 came to be registered by the Ilkal Police. 5. Sri B.V.Somapur, learned counsel submits that the entire complaint as filed is false and baseless. The respondent No.1/complainant in order to cover up her illicit relationship has filed the above complaint. On this basis a case in Crime No.6/2015 came to be registered by the Ilkal Police. 5. Sri B.V.Somapur, learned counsel submits that the entire complaint as filed is false and baseless. The respondent No.1/complainant in order to cover up her illicit relationship has filed the above complaint. Petitioners have not sought for any amount as dowry as alleged or otherwise all the statements made by the respondent No.1 in the complaint are figment of her imagination. He further submits that petitioner Nos.4 to 10 are not even residing in the matrimonial home and are residing in different cities and therefore the omnibus allegations made by the respondent No.1 are totally false. He further submits that, a comprehensive reading of the complaint would only disclose certain false allegations against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, the same would not disclose any demand made by the petitioner Nos.4 to 10. On this ground, he submits that the fact that the complainant has arrayed all ten persons as accused without making specific allegations against any of them would be a ground to quash the entire proceedings. 6. Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would opposes the prayer sought for by the petitioners contending that all the accused have together sought to pressurize respondent No.1 and her family to make payment of huge amount as dowry. Though petitioner Nos.4 to 10 are not living in the matrimonial home but they have through telephone conversation and during various meetings discussed with petitioner No.1 to pressurize respondent No.1 and her family to make payments of the dowry amounts. 7. Learned HCGP submits that the investigation is under progress and charge sheet is yet to be filed and while investigation is under progress the proceedings ought not be quashed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP and having perused the complaint, it is seen that there are specific allegations which are made as regards petitioner accused No.1 and to some extent petitioner Nos.2 and 3. However all other allegations made against the other petitioner are general in nature. There are no specific allegations which are made as regards petitioner Nos.4 to 10 except to state that they have visited the parental home to threaten respondent No.1 and her family members for dowry. 9. However all other allegations made against the other petitioner are general in nature. There are no specific allegations which are made as regards petitioner Nos.4 to 10 except to state that they have visited the parental home to threaten respondent No.1 and her family members for dowry. 9. The complaint has been filed against all the family members of the petitioner No.1 on account of matrimonial dispute which have arisen between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1. The dispute if any and any offences committed as per allegations made by respondent No.1 is by petitioner Nos.1 to 3. 10. In the above background, complaint filed in Ilkal P.S. Crime No.6/2015 (PC 2/2015) pending on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunagund is quashed in respect of petitioner Nos.4 to 10. It is however, made clear that the said proceedings will continue in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 3. The petitioners are however at liberty to defend the same by placing before the Court all the statement averments and proof of statement, averments as contended in the above petition. In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed, the proceedings in so far petitioner Nos.4 to 10 are quashed. It is made clear that the finding rendered above would not in any manner influence the trial court in conduct of the trial and delivery of its judgment on merits.