Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1346 (KAR)

N. C. Chandrashekar v. Mahalakshmi

2022-10-11

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos. 2 to 8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 13696/2021 registered by Women Police Station, East Zone, Bengaluru in Crime No. 113/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 120B, 109, 114, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, now pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No. 2-State and learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 3. The case of the prosecution is that CW.1-Smt. Mahalakshmi, wife of accused No. 1 (he is not a petitioner before this Court) filed a complaint to the police on 03.12.2020 alleging that she married accused No. 1-Naveen Kumar and their marriage was held on 15.06.2012. Accused No. 1 was not having parents, therefore, accused Nos. 2 and 5 being the uncle and aunt of accused No. 1 came forward to perform his marriage, they demanded dowry and at their instance, the dowry was given to accused No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-cash, gold chain, watch, suit etc. and the marriage was performed by her mother and sister i.e., C.W.4 and C.W.5. After the marriage, they were having two children. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 said to be brother and sister-in-law of accused No. 1. They were residing along with accused No. 1 and the complainant. They started harassing the complainant physically and mentally. Accused Nos. 2 and 5 along with their family members used to instigate accused No. 1 and in turn accused No. 1 used to quarrel with the complainant. When accused No. 1 gets his monthly salary, accused Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 used to visit the house, stay for two to three days over there and at that time, they instigated accused No. 1 to harass the complainant and finally, there was a panchayath held in the presence of the accused, they also said to be advised the complainant to lead happy marital life with accused No. 1. Subsequently, the complaint came to be filed alleging that she came to know that accused No. 1 contacted second marriage with one Niveditha. Therefore, the complainant prayed for taking action. Subsequently, the complaint came to be filed alleging that she came to know that accused No. 1 contacted second marriage with one Niveditha. Therefore, the complainant prayed for taking action. After registering the case, the Police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet which is under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that accused Nos. 2, 5 to 8 were staying at Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District. Accused No. 1 along with accused Nos. 3 and 4 were residing in Bengaluru. Except participating in the marriage, they have not visited the house of accused No. 1. They never instigated accused No. 1 for anything. There is no specific allegation against them. Except the omnibus and general allegation against them, absolutely there is no record to show that these petitioners were harassed the complainant physically and mentally in demanding dowry or performing the marriage of Niveditha with accused No. 1. They have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no specific allegation for framing the charges against them. The trial Court also took cognizance without properly analyzing the fact of the case. Hence, prayed for quashing the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Soman & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. in Crl.A. No. 195 of 2020 (arising out of S.L.P(Crl.) No. 6545 of 2020). 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 2 and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 objected the petition and contended that the statement of CWs.7 and 8 who are the land lords of accused No. 1 have clearly stated that accused No. 1, 3 and 4 were residing together when there was a quarrel between the family. The other accused also used to visit the house of accused No. 1 often and often and they instigated accused No. 1 for harassing the complainant. They further stated that in the absence of the complainant, there was some lady by name Niveditha was staying with accused No. 1 in his house and after seeing her toe ring and hand full of bangles, they enquired with her, on enquiry, she has stated that she got married with accused No. 1-Naveen Kumar. There is sufficient material placed on record to frame the charges. There is sufficient material placed on record to frame the charges. On perusal of the statement of the mother and sister i.e., CWs.4 and 5, they have categorically stated that all the accused persons were harassing the victim and also arranged to perform the marriage to accused No. 1 and they have also demanded the dowry. There is sufficient material to frame the charges against them. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Having heard the arguments on both the sides and on perusal of the records, which reveals, of course, accused No. 1 have no parents, but he was residing along with accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the same roof. Admittedly, accused Nos. 2 and 5 who are the uncle and aunt of accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 6 to 8 are the children of the accused Nos. 2 and 5. They were residing at Gandsi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District. As per the statement of the complainant and her mother, the accused Nos. 2 and 5 came with a proposal of marriage with accused No. 1, they participated in the negotiation and in their presence, the complainant has given the gold chain, watch, ring, suit etc. to accused No. 1. However, there is no specific allegation made against the accused Nos. 2, 5, 6 to 8, they are specifically demanded further additional dowry after the marriage and they instigated accused No. 1 in harassing the complainant. Of course, there is omnibus allegation made against them that whenever accused Nos. 2 and 5 and their family members visit the house of accused No. 1, accused No. 1 used to give money to them. Therefore, the complainant objected for the same and the other accused said to have been used accused No. 1 as puppet. Except these allegations, the blame is that accused No. 1 was lending money to them and was not taking care of his children for their future. Therefore, there was quarrel between accused No. 1 and the complainant. Admittedly, the main allegation goes against accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 3 and 4 who are the brother and sister-in-law of accused No. 1 who were residing together in the house. Subsequently, it is also revealed that accused No. 1 got married with one Niveditha as second marriage as per the statement of CWs.7 and 8. Admittedly, the main allegation goes against accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 3 and 4 who are the brother and sister-in-law of accused No. 1 who were residing together in the house. Subsequently, it is also revealed that accused No. 1 got married with one Niveditha as second marriage as per the statement of CWs.7 and 8. But there is no evidence on record to show that accused Nos. 2, 5 and family members were specifically participated in performing the marriage. Of course, the allegation is that the said Niveditha is said to be the relative of accused Nos. 2 and 5, but there is no material on record to show that they have instigated and performed the marriage of accused No. 1 with Niveditha. Therefore, merely, the blame is that accused No. 1 used to pay money to accused Nos. 2 and 5 and used to look after their family members, that itself does not constitute the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. As per the statement of the complainant, accused No. 1 used to pay money to his uncle and aunt, therefore, the complainant used to object for the same, hence, the quarrel took place. Such being the case, accused Nos. 2, 5 and their family members are robed in the case by the complainant along with accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. But there is sufficient material placed on record to show that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were residing along with accused No. 1 and they are participated in the commission of offence by harassing the complainant, demanding dowry and also involved in performing the second marriage. Of course, accused No. 1 is already said to be filed a divorce case against the complainant which is pending. Such being the case, I am of the view, there is no material placed on record to frame the charges against accused Nos. 2, 5 to 8, but there is material placed on record to frame the charges against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, the learned counsel also not pressing the petition of accused Nos. 3 and 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view, the petition is required to be allowed in-part. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in-part. The criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 are hereby quashed. 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, the learned counsel also not pressing the petition of accused Nos. 3 and 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view, the petition is required to be allowed in-part. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in-part. The criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 are hereby quashed. However, the trial court is directed to frame the charges against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 along with accused No. 1 and proceed with the trial.