The High Court rejected a petition seeking quashing of an FIR for dowry harassment and cruelty. The court held that specific allegations of receiving dowry and subjecting the wife to cruelty made out a cognizable offence, requiring investigation by the police.
FIR was not quashed; liberty granted to approach the Court after filing of the 'B' report.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.267/2021
BETWEEN:
1 . B.P.SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE BHYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT. HOSA BADAVANE ASHOKANAGARA, WARD NO.12 NEAR SRIRAMA MANDIRA MALAVALLI TOWN AND POST NEAR SRIRAMA MANDIRA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT D.NO.400, 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN MARUTHINAGARA, MYSURU ROAD NEAR MUNESHWRA NAGARA TEMPLE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560056.
2
4 . CHANDRASHEKARA S/O LATE KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NOW R/O NO.163, 3RD CROSS 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM NORTH MYSURU CITY-570002. … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. AKHILA J.K. D/O JAGADISH M.L. W/O B.P. SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A ASHOKA NAGARA MALAVALLI TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA MALAVALLI TOWN P.S, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.P.PUTTARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHOWRI H.R., HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.75/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A) AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC COURT, MALAVALLI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.75/2020 registered by the Malavalli Town Police Station, Mandya District, against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’ for short) and pass such other relief/s as this Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
complainant, who is the second respondent herein, has filed a complaint before the police on 12.12.2020 making the allegation against the petitioners that her marriage was solemnized on 27.06.2016. During the time of her marriage, her parents had given an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs and 30 grams of gold in the presence of Gurushanthu and Papaiah. It is also an allegation in the complaint that she was looked after very well for a period of four months and thereafter she was subjected to cruelty and also demanded for additional dowry stating that the dowry which
4
was given at the time of marriage was not sufficient and insisted her to get the house transferred in favour of her husband and also an allegation is made that, they abused her in a filthy language. It is also alleged in the complaint that if she does not get the house in favour of her husband, they were not allowing, living with her husband. Hence, the complainant registered a case for the above offences against the petitioners.
5
constitute the offences, which have been invoked against the petitioners herein.
6
following:
ORDER
In view of rejecting the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 for
stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered for dowry-related offences under Sections 498A IPC, 506 IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed.
Whether a cognizable offence is made out based on the allegations in the complaint against the petitioners.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
B.P. SUNIL KUMAR
S. LINGAIAH @ NINGAIAH
LEELAVATHI @ NILAMMA
CHANDRASHEKARA
AKHILA J.K.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
