SMT. MALLIGA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

SMT. THILAGAVATHY D. D/O LATE DORAISWAMY W/O SIMSON, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGAR, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU-560045. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

SMT. PUSHPA W/O LATE MAHENDRAN D. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28884 CRL.P No. 8290 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8294 of 2021 R/AT NO.38, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGAR SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU-560045 (BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. H.RAMACHANDRA, ADV. FOR R2.) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE D.J.HALLI POLICE IN C.C.NO.55479/2016, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506 OF IPC AND ORDER DATED 08.08.2016 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU TAKING COGNIZANCE AND DIRECTING TO REGISTER THE CRIMINAL CASE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. IN Crl.P No.8294/2021 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. MALLIGA W/O LATE DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

2. SMT. THILAGAVATHY D. W/O SIMSON, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

MISS. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

SRI. J. SIMSON @ SAMSON S/O LATE JAMES AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.13, 2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGAR, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28884 CRL.P No. 8290 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8294 of 2021 …PETITIONERS SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, D.J.HALLI, BENGALURU-560045 (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2. SMT. PUSHPA W/O LATE MAHENDRAN D. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.38, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGAR, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU-560045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. H.RAMACHANDRA, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE D.J.HALLI POLICE IN C.C.NO.50259/2017, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND ORDER DATED 10.01.2017 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU TAKING COGNIZANCE AND DIRECTING TO REGISTER THE CRIMINAL CASE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28884 CRL.P No. 8290 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8294 of 2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA)

1. On 31.03.2016 the second respondent herein initiated a complaint on the basis of which a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

2. A reading of the complaint indicates that the second respondent and her husband had marital discord and her entire grievances was directed against her husband. It is nodoubt true that the second respondent had made allegations that her husband used to ill-treat her and physically abuse her at the instigation of his mother and sisters.

3. In my view, however, these allegations against the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law are general allegations and cannot be a justification for prosecuting them on the criminal side. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28884 CRL.P No. 8290 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8294 of 2021

4. Two months thereafter, the second respondent had lodged another complaint on 05.05.2016 in which she has contended that she has objected her sister-in-law for the installation of a CCTV camera. She, however, goes on to state that her husband was not taking care of her and was making an attempt to kill her.

It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the criminal prosecution, the husband of second respondent passed away in the year 2017.

A reading of both the complaints would indicate that the allegations are essentially directed against the husband, who is no more and the allegations against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law are general in nature and no specific overt acts are attributed against them and I am, therefore, of the view that the proceedings cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, a suit has been instituted by the children of - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:28884 CRL.P No. 8290 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8294 of 2021 the second wife of Sri.K.Doraiswamy, who is the father-in- law of second respondent, against the petitioners including the husband of the second respondent – complainant herein and the same is pending adjudication.

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34