Criminal Petition No. 7621 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7621 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NUTHAN REDDY S. S/O Y SHESHADRI REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A 1246, 22 MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR, BANGALORE - 560 102. 2. SMT. SARASAMMA, @ SARASWATHAMMA W/O Y SHESHADRI REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A 1246, 22 MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR, BANGALORE - 560 102 3. SMT. KAVITHA W/O BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO 117, BEHIND OLD SRINIVASA THEATRE, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 037 4. SRI. BHASKAR S/O MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A NO 117, BEHIND OLD SRINIVASA THEATRE, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 037 Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka (BY SRI. C.V. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HSR LAYOUT POLICE, BANGALORE - 560 102 REP BY SPP HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 560 001
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. SUGUNA N. W/O K.H. MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODATHI GRAMA, KARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 035 (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. M. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) IN S.C.NO.20/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-46), BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners -accused Nos.1 to 4 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.455/2016 of H.S.R. Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, pending in S.C. No. 20/2017, on the file of the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A read - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the DP Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the mother of the deceased lodged the first information with H.S.R. Layout Police Station, Bengaluru against accused Nos.1 to 4 being husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, making allegations that the deceased got married to petitioner No.1 on 23.05.2012 and at the time of marriage, accused have demanded and received dowry. After that, for about four months, they lead happy married life. Later, the accused started ill-treating the deceased and same was informed by the deceased to her mother and other family members. The cruelty and ill-treatment of the deceased continued by demanding the additional dowry. On 23.06.2016 at about 06.15 p.m., accused No.3 called the informant over phone and informed that her grand daughter fell down and sustained injuries and called her to come home immediately. The informant along with her sister rushed to the matrimonial home and they found that the daughter of the informant hanged herself to the fan in her bedroom. The victim was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 released and she was shifted to a Private Hospital where she died in the early hours on 24.06.2016. Therefore, the informant requested the Police to register the case and to initiate legal action against all the accused. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Crime No.455/2016 was registered and investigation was undertaken. 3. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. According to the charge sheet, at the time of marriage, accused have demanded and received 1 kg of gold ornaments and 1½ kgs of silver articles. Not being satisfied with the same, the accused started demanding additional money and also they were insisting to get a share in the parental properties. The deceased was being ill-treated both physically and mentally and as a result of which she was driven to take such extreme step of ending her life by hanging in the matrimonial house. Accordingly, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed this petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 4. Heard Sri C.V. Sudhindra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, according to the prosecution, the deceased was calling the informant and the family members very frequently and the sterling evidence, i.e., the call records were not collected by the Police during the investigation. General allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offence. Accused Nos.3 and 4 being the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1 are residing separately at Marathahalli whereas, accused Nos.1 and 2 being the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased were residing at H.S.R. Layout along with the deceased. While filing the complaint all the family members were roped in. CW-1 being the mother, CW-2 being the father, CW-3 being the aunt, CW-4 being the sister and CW-22 being the neighbour have given their statements to the Police. Under these circumstances, it is not a case for raising the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed an application seeking discharge, but the said application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others v/s State of Telangana and Another1 in support of his contention that mere reference to the names of the family members in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement is to be nipped in the bud. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that except saying that the offence in question is committed at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4, no specific allegations are made against them. Under such circumstances, criminal petition is to be allowed in the interest of justice. 8. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that the criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 4, who are the 1 AIR 2025 SC 173 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 family members of accused No.1 is liable to be quashed. Hence, prays for passing appropriate orders. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that, the mother of the deceased lodged the first information making specific allegations. It is stated that 1kg of gold and 1½ kgs of silver articles were given as dowry at the time of marriage and there was demand for additional dowry. There was also demand for share in the parental properties. The deceased died within 4 years after marriage, leaving her 2 years old kid. She was found hanging in the matrimonial house and therefore, presumption will arise in favour of the prosecution. Witnesses have specifically stated regarding demand for dowry and cruelty soon before her death. Under such circumstances, it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is ‘Partly in Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 11. The mother of the deceased lodged the first information making specific allegations against the accused. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. As per charge sheet allegations, accused No.1 being the husband of the deceased had demanded and accepted dowry i.e., 1kg of gold and 1½ kgs of silver articles at the time of marriage and still continued to demand additional dowry from the deceased. He used to ill-treat her very frequently and it is stated that the acts of accused No.1 was at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4. Except stating that accused No.2 to 4 were instigating accused No.1 either to demand additional dowry or to treat the deceased with cruelty, there are no specific allegations against them. Accused No.2 is the mother, accused No.3 is the sister - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 and accused No.4 is the brother-in-law of accused No.1. It is stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing separately. 12. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Dara Lakshmi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to a similar case, where there is reference to the members of the family of the main accused to implicate them in the criminal case making general and omnibus allegations. In paragraph No.25 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court made it very clear that mere reference to the names of the family members in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement is to be nipped in the bud. The Court has also referred to the general tendency which is growing nowadays to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of the matrimonial discords and therefore, cautioned the Courts about such generalized and sweeping accusations, unsupported by concrete evidence and held that such general allegations cannot be the basis for criminal prosecution. The High Courts are also cautioned to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.PC to prevent misuse of the legal provisions and the legal process for the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 purpose avoiding unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court aptly apply to petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in the present case who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 as they are the family members of accused No.1. 13. When the accusations made against accused No.1 - husband of the deceased are taken into consideration, there are specific allegations made against him regarding demand and acceptance of dowry at the time of marriage and demand for additional dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty soon before her death. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the general allegations are made against him. Admittedly, the deceased died an unnatural death in the matrimonial house within 4 years from the date of her marriage, leaving her 2 years old kid. The materials on record give rise to the presumption of law regarding dowry death and therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is not entitled for any relief, whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 - accused Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for relief of quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7829 CRL.P No. 7621 of 2018 14. Even though, learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satvir Singh And Others v/s State of Punjab And Another2, Vipin Jaiswal v/s State of AP3, Charan Sing v/s The State of Uttarakhand4 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam And Others v/s State of Bihar and Others5, in all these cases the facts of the case disclose that the parties have approached the Hon'ble Apex Court after full-fledged trial and therefore, the principals of law highlighted in these decisions are not applicable to the facts in the present case. 15. In view of the discussions held above, I answer the above point "Partly in the Affirmative" and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The petition filed by petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is dismissed. (ii) The petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - accused Nos.2 to 4 is allowed.