Criminal Petition No. 10989 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12941 CRL.P No. 10989 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10989 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANU A.N.
Legal Reasoning
S/O SRI NANJUNDAPPA R AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NAVANAGARA, HOLALKERE ROAD, NEAR FIRE STATION, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION DAVANGERE CITY SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577 001 REP. BY LEARNED SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. SUNITHA H R W/O SRI MANU A N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NO. 1871/102, 8TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE DAVANGERE- 577 001. (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP, FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS C.C.NO.912/2021 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12941 CRL.P No. 10989 of 2023 DAVANAGERE IN PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET AS PER ANNEXURE-D AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 504, 498A, 34, 114, 323, 342 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.1, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 498A, 114, 323, 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 2.5.2018. At the time of the marriage, accused No.1 allegedly received dowry in the form of cash and gold ornaments. After the marriage, accused Nos.1 to 4 are said to have abused the de facto complainant, stating that she was not good-looking and had not brought sufficient dowry. On 26.10.2019, when the de facto complainant checked the phone of accused No.1, she noticed that accused No.1 was exchanging messages with accused No.5. Upon questioning, accused No.1 claimed that accused No.5 was a colleague and a divorced woman. Further, on 20.9.2020, accused No.1 allegedly locked the de facto complainant in a room without providing food. On 14.10.2020, accused No.2 reportedly picked up a quarrel and stated that she would arrange a second marriage for accused No.1. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12941 CRL.P No. 10989 of 2023 3. Despite being served with a notice, the respondent- de facto complainant neither appeared in person nor through her counsel and, therefore, has been placed ex parte. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State. 5. The petitioner-accused No.1 filed a petition in MC No.247/2020 for the dissolution of his marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In those proceedings, the de facto complainant stated that her father-in- law, aged about 70 years, resides in Chennagiri Town. She further admitted that she had not given any statement to the police alleging that accused Nos.1 to 3 stated she was not good-looking or that they subjected her to cruelty. She also acknowledged that her suspicion regarding accused No.1’s alleged illicit relationship with accused No.5 was unfounded. 6. Therefore, it is evident that the FIR was lodged merely on the suspicion that accused No.1 was allegedly involved in an illicit relationship with accused No.5. There are no specific overt acts attributed to petitioner-accused No.1 detailing how and in what manner the de facto complainant was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty or how she was demanded to bring money from her parental home. 7. This Court in Crl.P.No.5554/2021 disposed of on 22.09.2023, quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4 by observing as follows: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12941 CRL.P No. 10989 of 2023 ”7.A perusal of the FIR and also the statement of the witnesses indicates that except omnibus and general allegation, there is no specific allegation against these petitioners/accused, as to how, and in what manner, they subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty. The allegation against accused No.5 is that accused No.1 used to chat with accused No.5 on whatsapp by using vulgar words. Accused No.5 is not a relative of the husband and the offence under Section 498A cannot be invoked against her. 8.The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar1at para No.18 has held as follows: The decisions above-mentioned “18. clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” judgments the said from that 9. Admittedly, accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing separately in their hometown and defacto complainant was residing separately with accused No.1 in marital home at Davangere. Accused No.1 had filed a petition in M.C.No.247/2020 on 18.09.2020 for dissolving his marriage with the defacto complainant on the ground of cruelty and after having received notice from the Family Court, the FIR was lodged, which clearly infers 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12941 CRL.P No. 10989 of 2023 that the FIR was lodged to falsely implicate the petitioners herein." 8. Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.5554/2021. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: i. ii.
Decision
ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.912/2021 pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere, insofar as it relates to accused No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90