Allowed

Anand v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2019CRL.P/3510/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing proceedings against a petitioner (sister-in-law) in a dowry harassment case. The court held that general allegations and absence of specific charges rendered the proceedings an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC No.129/2018 against petitioner No.2 Surekha D/o Manohar Kari are quashed.

Anand Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3510/2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANAND MANOHAR KARI S/O MANOHAR KARI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC:SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O D/O 10A DANESHWARI COLONY, GOPANKOPPA HUBBALLINOW R/O H.NO.9204, SANYWOOD DRIVE, SANFORD, FLORIDA-32771 UNITED STATE OF AMERICA

¶9

SUREKHA D/O MANOHAR KARI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE SERVICE R/O R/O D/O 10/A DANESHWARI COLONY, GOPANKOPPA HUBBALLI NOW R/O D.NO.229, BEML LAYOUT, 4^TH MAIN, 11^TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560079

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Smt. M.A.MAKANDAR, ADV. FOR SUMANGALA A. CHAKALABBI, ADV.)

¶12

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 THROUGH POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, WOMEN POLICE STATION BELGAVI CITY, BELGAVI-590016.

¶15

SHRUTI ANAND KARI W/O ANAND KARI, D/O NAGENDRA ACHARYA AGE:29, OCC: NIL, R/O ‘ SHRIPAD’ PLOT NO. 26 KARIYAPPA COLONY, NANAWADI BELAGAVI-590016, DIST BELAGAVI.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHUKUMAR NAIK, HCGP FOR R1, SRI SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶18

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.129/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF J.M.F.C.-II, BELAGAVI.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings pending in CC No.129/2018 on the file of JMFCII, Belagavi.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that, the wife of petitioner No.1, Smt. Shruti W/o Anand Kari filed complaint on 9/4/2017 before the Women Police Station, Belagvi. She has alleged in the complaint that after receipt of the marriage proposal and after communication between herself and petitioner No.1, her marriage with petitioner No.1 was fixed on 7/9/2015. She has stated that, at the time of marriage, the accused demanded silver Kalash, silver plate, Rs.1,00,000/- for her flight ticket, 300gms. of gold and they have complied the same. Her marriage engagement was performed

¶24

¶25

on 23/12/2015 and the marriage was solemnized on 24/12/2015 which was

¶26

subsequently registered on 26/12/2015. She accompanied her husband to US on 8/1/2016.

¶27

She has further alleged that parents of her husband also joined them at US. It is furthered stated that her husband and in laws started torturing, ill-treating and taunting her that she is unfit to be the wife the accuedNo.1 and that if he had married another Indian girl, he would have received dowry according to his status. Subsequently, she was made to attend all the work including cooking, cleaning floors, washing cloths and she was not allowed to sleep in the bedroom of her husband. It is further stated that her father-in-law Manohar Kari died on 7/3/2017 in India. Her husband, his sister and mother started ill-treating her, blaming her that she is responsible for the death of her

¶28

¶29

father-in-law. Accused insisted her father to arrange and pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and a premium luxury car immediately, otherwise, they will desert her and her husband will marry second wife. Therefore, complainant filed a complaint against her husband and his family members on the basis of which Crime No.24/2017 was registered and after investigation a charge sheet is filed against her husband and sister in law Surekha D/o Manohar Kari for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act.

¶30

The petitioners have further stated

¶31

that they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. The complaint was filed with ulterior motive to grab money and to black male the petitioners. There is a delay in

¶32

¶33

filing the complaint. The complainant filed the complaint only after petitioner No.1 filed private complaint No.170/2017 in order to overcome the allegations made therein. The complainant has not made any clear or specific allegation against petitioner No.2 in her complaint. Petitioner No.2 is working at Bangalore and she is residing with her mother, hence, question of committing alleged offence does not arise. Therefore, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings pending against them.

¶34

This Court by order dated 8/5/2018

¶35

dismissed the petition relating to petitioner No.1.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner No.2 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 submitted that arraying petitioner No.2 in complaint by the complainant is abuse of

¶39

process of law and that absolutely there are no overt act against her. The learned counsel further submitted that initially, the complainant had made allegation against her mother-in-law, brother of her husband and also wife of brother of husband and subsequently, she has given a further statement stating that they have not harassed or ill-treated her as brother of her husband and his wife were residing separately even prior to her marriage. Therefore, proceedings initiated against petitioner No.2 is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel, has relied on the judgments in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2012) 10 SCC 741, Chandralekha

¶40

¶41

and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (2013) 14 SCC 374 and Sadiqulla and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others 2014 (4) KCCR 2927.

¶42

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that only in the rarest case this Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly. It is further submitted that in the present case, no such case is made out by petitioner No.2 so as to quash the proceeding pending against her. In support of his submission, the learned High Court Government Pleader has relied on the judgment in Sate of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others AIR 2017 SC 373 and

¶43

¶44

order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100214/2019 between Smt.

¶45

Suramma W/o Thipperudrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and another decided on

¶46

23/9/2019.

¶47

The allegation made in the complaint

¶48

are mainly against accused No.1, the husband of the complainant. It is also stated that immediately after the marriage, the parents and

¶49

sister of her husband did not accompany them to US and that subsequently, his parents and

¶50

sister joined them in US. The allegations against petitioner No.2 sister of accused No.1 are general in nature and no specific allegations

¶51

are made against her. It is only stated that petitioner No.2, immediately after arrival at Florida, all these people starting telling her that her parents have not given any dowry and

¶52

¶53

taunted that had her husband married to

¶54

another girl, they would given lot of gold, silver etc. The allegations are general in nature and not specific against petitioner No.2 herein. The allegations stated supra were also made against the parents of her husband and subsequently, the complainant herself by giving further statement has stated that her mother-in-law has not harassed or ill-treated her and inconsequent of further statement, she was not charge sheeted. This itself goes to show that the complainant to her knowledge has made an untrue statement that the brother of her husband and his wife also harassed her. Admittedly, the mother-in-law of the complainant is not charge sheeted for the alleged offences.

¶55

¶56

In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and

¶57

Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another stated supra the Apex Court has held that where large number of family members had been included in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and contents did not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified.

¶58

In the case of Chandralekha and

¶59

Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another stated supra, the Apex Court has held that where the FIR was lodged against the mother-inlaw and sister-in-law, making reckless and rare allegation only to rope them in the case along with her husband, it was held that it is abuse of process of law and proceedings were quashed insofar as mother-in-law and sister-in-law and

¶60

¶61

directed to proceed with the case against the husband.

¶62

In the case of Sadiqulla and

¶63

Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others,

¶64

stated supra, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings for offences under Section 498A of IPC on the ground that brotherin-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-inlaw were not residing with accused No.1-

¶65

husband at the time of alleged offence.

¶66

In the case of Sate of Telangana

¶67

Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others stated

¶68

supra, the Apex Court has laid down guidelines for considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This decision has been followed by this Court in the case of Suramma W/o

¶69

Thipperudrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and another stated supra .

¶70

¶71

This Court has also referred to

¶72

the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, wherein similar guidelines have been laid down by the Apex Court in order to quash the proceedings in exercise of extra jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners have to make out one of the ground stated in the guidelines . Guideline number one reads thus:

¶73

“Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in tie entirety do not pirma facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.”

¶74

The facts referred to in the

¶75

present case goes to show that there are no specific allegations against petitioner No.2 in the complaint and they do not prima facie

¶76

¶77

constitute the alleged offence against petitioner No.2.

¶78

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings initiated against petitioner No.2 amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings initiated against petitioner No.2 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

The petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The entire proceedings pending in CC No.129/2018 on the file of JMFC II, Belagavi, so far as it relates to petitioner No.2 Surekha D/o Manohar Kari are quashed.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

Vmb

Anand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayanand S/O. Hanumanth Nayak Vs Suresh S/O. Subray Shet

Basavaraj S/O Shantappa Shetteppanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Gutteppa S/O Bhimappa Karibheemannanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Pandurang S/O Ganapati Kamkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Yaseen S/O Dastagir Malidwale Vs Azizkhan S/O Lazam Tajoddin

Yaseen S/O Dastagir Malidwale Vs Azizkhan S/O Lazam Tajoddin