Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 255 (KAR)

Subramanya S. v. State of Karnataka

2023-02-10

K.NATARAJAN

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 7 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.911/2022 (in Crime No.34/22 registered by Mangaluru Women Police) pending on the file of III JMFC Court, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 323, 448, 506 read with Sec. 149 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2-Shruthi, on 14/3/2022, the police registered a case. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant married to accused No.1 on 24/11/2016 and her father spent more than Rs.25.00 lakhs for the purpose of marriage, Rs.2.50 lakhs was given to accused No.1 as dowry by way of cash, 20 sovereign golden ornaments were given at the time of marriage. Five sovereign gold ornaments, out of which, two sovereign by way of chain, two sovereign by way of bracelet and one sovereign by way of finger ring, apart from suit, watch and other materials worth of Rs.15.00 lakhs, paid to accused No.1. Accused No.1 claimed to be the Assistant Manager in MRPL company at Managaluru. After the marriage, both accused No.1 and complainant lived together as husband and wife. Subsequently, accused No. 4 used to visit accused NO.1 and the complainant and used to instigate accused NO.1 and pinpricked, thereby accused NO.1 was quarreling with the complainant. Accused NO.3, the mother of accused No.1 also used to blame the complainant stating that she is dark in colour, her son might have got huge dowry, if he married somebody. Thereafter, the accused persons demanded additional dowry from the complainant, they harassed her physically and mentally. Accused Nos.3 and 4 always used to abet accused No.1. However, the complainant did not file any complaint in order to live peacefully. Subsequently, accused No.1 said to be constructed a house at Golgudde and thereafter, accused No.4, accused NO.5 and their daughter accused NO.6 came and resided in the upper floor of the house and once again, the quarrel started troubling the complainant. Subsequently, accused No.1 demanded a site at Bengaluru, when the father of complainant refused to give, they all harassed her physically and mentally. Subsequently, accused No.1 demanded a site at Bengaluru, when the father of complainant refused to give, they all harassed her physically and mentally. Subsequently, accused No.7 who is said to be brother-in-law of accused No.1 also demanded the complainant to transfer the site measuring 60 x 40 ft. to the name of accused No.1 from the father of the complainant as he is having a site at Bengaluru. After registering FIR, the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet, which is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately from complainant and accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 to 6 were staying in the upstairs of the building constructed by accused No.1, but not along with this complainant and the complainant was not cooperating with the accused. Therefore, accused No.1 sent a legal notice on 21/11/2016 for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, both of them joined together and lived for four / five years. Again the complainant started troubling in-laws and thereafter, a complaint was filed by her to the police but there is no allegation against the accused persons in her complaint dtd. 9/8/2021 and 29/8/2021. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed a divorce petition before the family Court. A notice has been issued to respondent No.2-complainant and the date of appearance was fixed by the family Court as on 15/3/2022, but a day prior to the date of appearance, the present complaint came to be filed making several allegations, but there is no specific allegation made against any of these petitioners. Accused No.7 is far relative of accused No.1 and hence, there is no allegation against him. Therefore, continuing proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. Hence prays for quashing the proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has seriously objected the petition and contended that accused No.2 is father-in-law and accused No.3 is mother- in-law of the complainant. Accused No.4 is sister-in-law of the complainant and accused No.5 is husband of accused NO.4 and accused No.6 is daughter of accused Nos.4 and 5. There is a specific allegation made against all the accused persons in the complaint. There is a statement by the parents of accused which reveals the demand and acceptance of dowry. Accused No.4 is sister-in-law of the complainant and accused No.5 is husband of accused NO.4 and accused No.6 is daughter of accused Nos.4 and 5. There is a specific allegation made against all the accused persons in the complaint. There is a statement by the parents of accused which reveals the demand and acceptance of dowry. Accused Nos.4 to 6 came to reside on the upstairs of the same building and started troubling the complainant by making several allegations against her. Accused No.6 used to take video graphs and photos of complainant through window and making allegations against the complainant to her maternal uncle i.e. accused No.1 and because of accused No.6, most of quarrel took place. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were previously residing in some other place and purposefully, they came and stayed in upstairs of the building where the complainant was living and started to trouble her. Though accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately, but they often come and quarrelling with complainant. Previously, accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing together with complainant and accused No.1, and after some time, the accused No.1 constructed a separate house. Accused No.3 used to blame the complainant as very dark in colour and she might have got more dowry if accused No.1 married some other lady. The accused persons demanded and accepted the dowry articles. Therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed against them. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records, and also the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Perusal of the records reveal that as per the complaint, the complainant's father has given Rs.2.50 lakh cash as dowry to accused No.1, apart from 5 sovereign of golden ornaments to accused No.1. All the accused persons came to the house of the complainant and demanded dowry articles and received by them. Subsequently accused No.3 used to blame the complainant that she is dark in colour and she is not fit to their family and she might have got more dowry if accused No.1 married some other girl and the same was intimated to the parents by the complainant, which reveals that there is specific allegation against accused No.3. 8. Likewise, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the daughter of accused Nos.4 and 5. 8. Likewise, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the daughter of accused Nos.4 and 5. Previously, they were residing as opposite neighbours and started troubling the complainant. In the year 2016, the complainant left matrimonial home for delivery purpose. Thereafter, on 21/11/2016, accused No.1 issued a legal notice and the complainant given reply on 1/12/2016 stating that she is ready to join him. Subsequently, both of them joined and resided together for more than four years. It is an admitted fact that accused No.1 constructed a building where the complainant and himself were residing in a house. Subsequently, Accused Nos.4 to 6 also came and stayed on the upstairs of the same building. Thereafter once again, the accused persons started troubling the complainant for one or the other reasons and abetting accused No.1 to harass her. 9. Accused No.6 also used to watch the complainant through window and take photographs, record audio and give information to the accused No.1, 4 and 5. This was also one of the reasons for troubling the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused Nos.4 to 6 have no role in harassing the complainant. 10. That apart, accused No.7, who is another brother-in-law of accused No.1, started supporting accused No.1 and demanding for transfer of site to the name of accused No.1 where the father of complainant said to be having a site at Bengaluru measuring 60 x 40 ft. The accused persons always insisting the complainant to transfer the site in the name of accused No.1 Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the accused that there is no allegation against the accused No.7, cannot be acceptable. 11. There is no subsequent allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3 as they frequently used to visit the house of accused No.1. Whenever accused No.3 come to home, there were quarreling demanding additional dowry. The complainant has not made all the allegations in the complaint given to the police on 29/8/2021 and 9/8/2021 where she has requested the police to advise the accused to lead marital life peacefully. Thereafter, the police called the accused No.1 and advised him to lead happy marital life where accused No.1 made some allegations against the complainant and he undertook not to trouble the complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed divorce petition against the complainant. Thereafter, the police called the accused No.1 and advised him to lead happy marital life where accused No.1 made some allegations against the complainant and he undertook not to trouble the complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed divorce petition against the complainant. Even though she is residing in the same building, accused No.1 joined and was staying on the upstairs of his sister's house and started troubling the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused Nos.4 to 6 have not abetted accused No.1 to harass the complainant. However, after rejoining, the complainant and accused No.1 started residing in the ground floor and accused Nos.4 to 6 were staying on the first floor of the same building and accused No.7 also supported accused No.1 by demanding transfer of site which was in the name of the father of complainant. 12. There is no further allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3 where they were residing separately from the house of accused No.1 and complainant. Though, in the beginning, there was allegation against accused No.3, but there was no allegation made against accused No.2. However, accused No.3 mother-in-law always blamed the complainant stating that she was dark in colour and accused No.1 might have got more dowry if he would have married some other lady, but there is no specific allegation against accused No.2. 13. That apart, merely, accused No.1 filed a divorce case and thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint against accused-husband and in-laws for dowry harassment, and that itself, is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The complainant has not lodged a detail complaint against the accused persons in order to reside with the accused No.1 in the matrimonial home. Though accused No.1 undertook not to trouble her, but thereafter, has filed the divorce case against her. It is pertinent to note that both accused No.1 and complainant were residing separately in the same building. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused persons have not harassed the complainant. There is specific allegation against each of the accused persons except accused No.2 and there is material placed on record to show that the accused persons except accused No.2 involved in committing the offence. Therefore continuing criminal proceedings against accused No.2 is abuse of process of law. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition filed by accused No.2- Subramanya S. is allowed. There is specific allegation against each of the accused persons except accused No.2 and there is material placed on record to show that the accused persons except accused No.2 involved in committing the offence. Therefore continuing criminal proceedings against accused No.2 is abuse of process of law. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition filed by accused No.2- Subramanya S. is allowed. Criminal Petition filed by accused No.3 to 7 is hereby dismissed. The criminal proceeding against accused No.2- Subramanya S. in C.C. No.911/2022 (in Crime No.34/22 registered by Mangaluru Women Police) pending on the file of III JMFC Court, Mangaluru, is hereby quashed.