Dismissed

R Gopal Krishna Pillai v. Smt. Vini R Panicker

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021CRL.P/3764/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of domestic violence and cruelty proceedings. The bench held that specific allegations of dowry demands and cruelty in the FIR and charge sheet prima facie constituted offences, and the case did not qualify as a pure matrimonial dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.20498/2015 dismissed. Trial Court directed to expedite trial.

R Gopal Krishna Pillai Vs Smt. Vini R Panicker — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3764/2016

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI R.GOPAL KRISHNA PILLAI S/O LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.366, 2^ND FLOOR BACK PORTION 10^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS BANGALORE CITY – 560 078

¶10

SMT.SATHYA G PILLAI W/O R.GOPAL KRISHNA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.366, 2^ND FLOOR BACK PORTION 10^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS BANGALORE CITY – 560 078 BOTH ARE R/AT NO.C.502 GANGA ELIKA, OPP. GANGA ESORIA KANDNAGAR UNDRI, PUNE – 411 028 …PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI K.V.PRAKASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

SMT.VINI R PANICKER W/O SUJEESH G PILLAI D/O KGR PANIKAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT VRS VILLA, VELLAKULANGARA MANAKALLA POST, ADOOR – 691 551

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶16

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.20498/2015 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506 AND 498A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.20498/2015 against the petitioners on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru amount to abuse of the process of the Court”? is the question involved in this case.

¶22

Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.20498/2015. Their son Sujeesh G. Pillai is accused No.1 in the said case. Respondent No.1 is the wife of accused No.1 Sujeesh G.Pillai. The impugned proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.1. The parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

¶23

The marriage of the complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 23.05.2013 at Geetham Auditorium, Adoor, Kerala State. The complainant filed the

¶24

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶25

¶26

complaint on 16.12.2014 as per Annexure-B before VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in PCR No.19474/2014 alleging that before and at the time of marriage, accused demanded and accepted dowry by way of gold jewellaries, valuable clothes and in the form of marriage expenses.

¶27

The complainant further alleged that after marriage during her stay with accused Nos.1 to 3 in Pune, all of them subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with unlawful demands. She further alleged that thereafter even during her stay along with accused No.1 in Bengaluru, accused No.1 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. She also alleged that accused No.1 had indifferent behaviour and he used to harass her and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.

¶28

Learned Magistrate referred the complaint to Mico Layout police (respondent No.2 herein) for investigation. On the basis of such complaint, the police registered the first information report in Crime No.1074/2014 against the accused as per Annexure-A for

¶29

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶30

¶31

the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶32

Based on such charge sheet, the trial Court took cognizance of the offences, registered the case in C.C.No.20498/2015 and summoned the accused to face the trial. Thereafter accused No.1 filed M.C.No.4993/2015 against the complainant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. That case was not contested by the complainant. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed ex-parte on 05.09.2017.

¶33

The complainant has challenged the said judgment before this Court in M.F.A.No.9193/2017. The said matter is still pending before this Court. On 11.01.2018, this Court by interim order has stayed the execution and operation of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶34

The complainant has filed M.C.No.4024/2017 against accused No.1 on 08.08.2017 seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said

¶35

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶36

¶37

case is still pending for adjudication. She has also field Crl.Misc.59/2015 against the accused under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging domestic violence. That matter is also still pending.

¶38

The accused seeks quashing of the

¶39

proceedings in C.C.No.20498/2015 against them on the following grounds:

¶40

(i) The complainant hardly stayed for three weeks with them after marriage. The complaint was filed after more than one year against them only to harass them;

¶41

(ii) There are no specific allegations constituting the offences alleged against them;

¶42

(iii) The complaint was filed only to avoid

¶43

matrimonial obligation.

¶44

Reiterating the grounds of the petition averments, Sri K.V.Prakasha, learned Counsel for the accused seeks quashing of the proceedings.

¶45

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶46

¶47

Per contra, Sri Siji Malayil, learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned HCGP for the State oppose the petition on the following grounds:

¶48

(i) There are specific allegations against the accused in the complaint and the charge sheet records constitute the offence alleged;

¶49

(ii) The proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of pendency of the matrimonial cases, if there are materials to proceed against the accused;

¶50

(iii) The decree for restitution of conjugal rights was ex parte decree and now that has been stayed by this Court, therefore there is no merit in the contention that the complaint is filed to evade matrimonial obligations.

¶51

Learned Counsel for the complainant relies upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

¶52

(i) Santosh Dev. Vs. Archna Guha¹

¶53

(ii) Arun Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. through its Secretary & Another²

¶54

1 (1994) 2 SCC 420

¶55

2 (2020) 3 SCC 736

¶56

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶57

¶58

It is settled proposition of law that the High Court shall exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings sparingly and in rare cases. Unless it is shown that the proceedings against the accused is manifest abuse of the process of the Court or lead to failure to the ends of justice, such power shall not be exercised.

¶59

It is no doubt true that where such cases arise out of matrimonial disputes, the Court have to examine whether pure matrimonial dispute is cloaked into criminal case. However, at the same time, if the material on record shows that there is prima facie material constituting the offences alleged, the investigation and trial cannot be scuttled at inception.

¶60

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.³ held as follows:

¶61

“13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases . This is obviously on account of a prevalent

¶62

3 (2006) 6 SCC 736

¶63

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶64

¶65

impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :

¶66

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

¶67

(Emphasis supplied)

¶68

In the light of the above judgment this Court

¶69

has to examine whether material on record shows an element of offence. In para 2 of the complaint, there are

¶70

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶71

¶72

specific allegations that the accused demanded Rs.60,00,000/- by way of marriage expenses and accused No.2 received gold jewellareis named therein of the value mentioned therein.

¶73

In para 5 of the complaint, there are specific allegations that during the complainant’s stay in the house of the accused in Pune, they demanded Rs.35,00,000/- for clearing their housing loan and Rs.20,00,000/- for interior furnishing the said flat purchased by them. It is also alleged that all the accused forcibly took her gold jewelleries and accused Nos.2 and 3 were pestering her constantly about her finance and demanded her entire salary.

¶74

It is also alleged that the accused pestered her

¶75

to buy bangles for accused No.3 by using her credit card. It is also alleged that accused No.2 used to drink every night and ask her about her assets and when she refused to reveal, the accused threw her out of the matrimonial home.

¶76

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶77

¶78

In para 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded Rs.10,000/- and received the same and at their insistence, she spent Rs.10,000/- for the siblings of accused No.1.

¶79

In para 11 of the complaint, she has alleged

¶80

that the accused demanded Rs.50,00,000/- to purchase new flat in Bangalore when he was asked to vacate the rented house by landlord. In the light of the above allegations, it cannot be said that there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint.

¶81

The charge sheet contains the statements of witnesses reiterating the complaint allegations. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected the bills for having purchased gold jewellareis by the father of the complainant at the time of marriage, the statements of account and the account extracts of accused No.1 and the statement of the account of the father of the complainant in proof of transfer of money from his account to the account of accused No.1, the wound certificate of the complainant etc.

¶82

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶83

¶84

Having regard to such material, at this stage it

¶85

cannot be said that pure matrimonial dispute is cloaked into criminal case to harass the accused. The claim of the petitioners that only to avoid her matrimonial obligations, the complainant has falsely implicated them in the case, may constitute their defence during trial or a ground at the stage of framing of charges. Therefore continuation of the proceedings does not lead to failure of ends of justice or cannot said to be abuse of the process of the Court.

¶86

In Santosh Dev’s case referred to supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless the grave illegality is committed, the superior Courts should not interfere with the trial Court proceedings. In Arun Singh’s case referred to supra it was held that if the allegations in the first information report and the final report prima facie constitute the commission of offence alleged, the proceedings are not liable to be quashed.

¶87

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶88

Crl.P.No.3764/2016

¶89

¶90

Court, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

¶91

Therefore the petition is dismissed.

¶92

At this stage, both Counsel submit that the trial

¶93

Court may be directed to expedite the trial.

¶94

Having regard to the difficulties of both parties, considering the submissions and other materials on record, the trial Court is hereby requested to conduct the trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶95

Both the parties shall cooperate for expedited trial. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶96

Sd/JUDGE

¶97

KSR

R Gopal Krishna Pillai v. Smt. Vini R Panicker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Gopal Krishna Pillai v. Smt. Vini R Panicker

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

M R Ramesh Vs the State

Smt. a. P. Navitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh G Vs Amruthahalli Police Station

State of Karnataka Vs Ramanna @ Bar Ramanna

Sri Sathish Vs State by Girinagar Ps

Sri. Ishwara Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka