Dismissed

Hanamant S/O Bharamappa Madar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021CRL.P/100972/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition u/s 482 CrPC filed by relatives of accused sought quashing of criminal proceedings involving domestic harassment and dowry allegations. High Court, perusal of charge sheet revealed prima facie case for matrimonial cruelty made out, rejected plea for quashing, and dismissed petition citing Amish Devgan precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings is dismissed.

Hanamant S/O Bharamappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶5

CRL.P. NO.100972 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HANAMANT S/O BHARAMAPPA MADAR AGE:66 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

¶8

PARVATEVVA W/O HANAMANT MADAR AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,

¶9

SIDDAPPA S/O HANAMANT MADAR AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/O VARCHAGAL, TQ:MUDHOL, DIST:BAGALAKTO.

¶10

GEETA W/O VITTAL MADAR AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O NINGAPUR, TQ:MUDHOL, DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶16

THROUGH LOKAPUR PS, BAGALKOT.

¶17

SMT. SAVITA W/O RANGAPPA MADAR AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O VARCHAGAL NOW AT ROOGI,

¶18

TQ:MUDHOL, DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1) (SRI. PAVAN B DODDATITI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶21

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS, REGISTERED IN CC NO.946/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, (LOKAPUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.77/2015) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, (SO FAR THESE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED).

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶26

the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC No.946/2015 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol (Lokapur PS Crime No.77/2015) for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶27

A reading of the complaint shows that the complainant is one Savita, who got married with Accused No.1 on 24.5.2011. The present petitioners are parentsin-law, brother of husband of the complainant and sisterin-law of the complainant. It is disclosed from the causetitle that all the petitioners are living in the same taluk of

¶28

¶29

Mudhol. The allegations in the complaint are to the effect that sometime after the marriage, the petitioners started harassing and ill-treating the complainant for bringing dowry and also taunting and humiliating her saying that she does not know how to cook. It is also alleged in the complaint that they were always beating the complainant demanding money in order to buy motorcycle for accused No.1. There is also allegation regarding the incident which occurred on 12.2.2015 relating to the petitioners 1 to 3 threatening to set her on fire and further there is allegation that petitioner No.4 (Accused No.5), who is a married sister of the husband of the complainant, was also harassing and ill-treating the complainant whenever she visited her parents house during the festival occasions and also she used to threaten the complainant for dowry etc.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no ground made out in the complaint and further that on account of vengeance, the complainant had made false allegations against the

¶31

¶32

petitioners herein. He submits that particularly insofar as petitioner No.4, who is married sister of accused No.1 is concerned, she has nothing to do with the allegations against the rest of the accused insofar as harassing, illtreating and demand of dowry etc. to and from the complainant. He, therefore, submits that in view of several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have dealt with larger social implications of and also adverse effect on the family life by entertaining such complaints against the persons in the family who are not the husband of the complainant, this is a fit case where power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. requires to be exercised and the proceedings should be quashed insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.

¶33

Learned HCGP, on the other hand, submits that the complaint allegations as well as materials collected during the charge sheet clearly make out the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and as such, this is not a fit case to exercise

¶34

¶35

the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He also submits that insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned, charge sheet papers clearly disclose that there are specific allegations as against her and therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and also I have perused the charge sheet papers.

¶37

The charge sheet papers disclose that the complainant got married with accused No.1 on 24.5.2011 and the petitioners 1 and 2 are parents-in-law of the complainant, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are brother and sister of accused No.1 respectively. The allegations in the complaint as well as statement of the witnesses recorded by the IO are to the effect that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 at various point of time had harassed, ill-treated and humiliated the complainant and even assaulted her for extracting dowry and also extracting money for buying motorcycle for accused No.1. Insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned also, there is allegation both in the complaint

¶38

¶39

as well as statement of the witnesses recorded by the IO that she was also harassing and ill-treating the complainant whenever she visited her parents house on the festival occasions and she used to assault, ill-treat and humiliate the complainant and in order to extract dowry, she was threatening the complainant. In that view of the matter and also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-121 in Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1 , I am of the view that this is not a fit case for exercise of my power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The above petition is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

JTR

Hanamant S/O Bharamappa Madar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanamant S/O Bharamappa Madar v. the 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

Renuka W/O.Maruti Goundalkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ravishnkar S/O Hirojappa Kalal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarojini W/O. Gireppa Jakkannavar Vs Channayya S/O. Mallayya Hireamth

Smt Vinitha @ Vinisa W/O Santosh Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman Mannikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahabaleshwar Lingesh Bhat Vs Ganesh Lingesh Bhat