This court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash an FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C. regarding Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that disputes persisted post-mediation, justifying the complainant's challenge to the B-Report, and that factual defenses belong at trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1101 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
(BY MS. SHASHIKALA.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
2
7TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560068 … RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.1870/2015 COMPLAINT DATED 07.10.2015 IN CR.NO.1870/2015, NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.13288/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506 AND 498A OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
petitioners initially submits that she would not be pressing for prayer (b) in the petition and she would be only pressing for prayer (a).
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
3
respondent for alleged offences punishable under Section 506, 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’ for short) pending on the file of III Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
4
had made a statement before the Investigating Officer that she does not wish to prosecute the complaint. It is on that basis a B-report came to be filed. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.2 had filed a protest memo on 22.11.2017 challenging the B-report placing several facts on record as regards the alleged harassment meted out by the petitioner accused against the respondent-wife.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
5
would submit that the FIR has been challenged as also registration of C.C.No.13277/2019 has been challenged would deem the petitioner has challenged the order rejecting B-report and accepting the Protest Memo.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
6
B-report since that had been agreed upon between the parties.
5.2. She further submits that even otherwise the entire allegations made in the complaint are false inasmuch as allegations as regards the 1st petitioner having broken the arm of respondent No.2 is falsified on the basis of the discharge summary issued by the hospital wherein it is stated that the injury is caused due to the respondent No.2 falling from the bike on 2.3.2015.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
7
wherein it is stated that she tried to commit suicide.
5.4. Apart therefrom she submits that the entire
cause for the dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is on account of the grandmother, mother and father of respondent No.2 living together with petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in their matrimonial home. This, she submits is established on account of the fact that it is the father of respondent No.2 who had lodged various complaints. On these grounds she submits that the entire proceedings is malicious and falsified, ought to be quashed.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
8
6.1. respondent No.2 was mislead by the statements made by the petitioner inasmuch as it is on account of the earlier complaint which had been filed by respondent No.2 wherein non-bailable warrant had been issued that the petitioners had approached Sri Immadi Sidharameshwara Maha Swamiji for resolution of the matter and it is at that stage that the said Swamiji had intervened and resolved the dispute between the parties hoping that they would live together happily.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
9
option but to fend for herself by challenging B-report which had been filed by the jurisdictional police which had in turn being filed on the statement made by respondent No.2 that the dispute between the parties have been amicably resolved.
6.3. The Magistrate had considered all the relevant facts and in his detailed order dated 8.4.2019 wherein facts including the settlement having been considered, the Magistrate has come to a reasoned decision that the B-report having been filed on the statement made by respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 having placed several facts and documents on record for consideration, the B-report ought to be set-aside and a case registered against the petitioners. In this
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
10
background he submits that the petition as filed is liable to be rejected.
8. The question which arises in the present matter as regards: Whether after the B-report had been filed on the basis of the statement made by the complainant- respondent No.2, the said complainant- respondent No.2 could challenge the B-report which had been filed?
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
11
who had approached the Swamiji, whether it is petitioner No.1 or respondent No.2. The fact that there is a statement made that the disputes had been resolved would indicate that there were indeed disputes which were in existence as on that date to be resolved, it cannot be said that there were no disputes at all, not as to call her to filing of a B-report.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
12
11. There is a factual dispute here in terms of the respondent No.2 contending that it was petitioners who had approached the Swamiji when non-bailable warrant was issued on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 whereas counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is respondent No.2 who had approached the Swamiji. Be that as it may, it is not relevant for the purpose of this proceeding.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
13
Marriage Act seeking for dissolution of the marriage that was held in November 2017, subsequent to the resolution and advice of the said Swamiji to live together happily.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
14
regards one of the cousin of respondent No.2 having come to the matrimonial home, when the petitioner was asked to sleep on a sofa, other than this, there are no allegations made in the said petition as regards the grandmother, mother or father residing in the matrimonial home. The present proceeding filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. what is to be seen is whether the complaint or allegations made therein would indicate any offence made out against the petitioner or not, it is only in the event there being no offence which is made out against the petitioners that this court could entertain the same and exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
15
Haryana –v- Bhajanlal, more particularly in para 108 thereof , which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
"108. In the backdrop of he interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, thought it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently canalized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and o give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
16
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
17
these grounds are established in the present case. The fact of there being disputes being admitted, there being a resolution thereof and thereafter protest memo being filed is permissible inasmuch the protest memo was filed, would indicate that there is no settlement of the disputes, which was in fact have occurred and the disputes continued.
CRL.P NO.1101 OF 2020
18
the course of trial and cannot be considered in proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
ln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complainant can challenge a B-Report filed on the basis of their own statement indicating dispute resolution.
Whether the allegations in the FIR under Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 of DP Act disclose a prima facie offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana –v- BhajanlalExplained¶78
State of Haryana –v- Bhajanlal
5 provisions across 3 enactments
PRAVEEN SHIGGANVI
KUSUMA K SHIGGANVI
STATE OF KARNATAKA
ARPITHA H
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
