Partly allowed

Mukkatira Neeth Aiyappa v. the State by Ponnampet P S

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2021CRL.P/4370/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court quashed proceedings against two in-laws due to lack of corroborating evidence but dismissed the petition regarding the husband based on a valid complaint. Followed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3 (in-laws) in C.C.No.85/2019 are quashed; petition dismissed regarding petitioner 1 (husband).

Mukkatira Neeth Aiyappa Vs the State by Ponnampet P S — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4370 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Mukkatira Neeth Aiyappa, Son of M.Bopaiah, Aged about 34 years,

¶9

M.K.Bopaiah, Son of Late Kalaiah, Aged about 66 years,

¶10

Smt. M.B.Kasturi, Wife of M.K.Bopaiah, Aged about 66 years,

¶11

All are residents of Echur, Kunda Village, Ponnampet, Kodagu-571216.

¶12

(By Sri Saravana S., Advocate)

¶13

AND

¶14

The State by Ponnampet P.S., Represent by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560001.

¶15

¶16

Shruthi Ayyappa, W/o Mukkatira Nith Ayyappa, Aged about 26 years, Shanthi Nagara, Ponnampet, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu-571216.

¶17

…Respondents (By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1; Sri B.S.Sachin, Advocate for R2)

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.85/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ponnampet for the offence 498-A, 323, 506 read Section 34 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶19

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri. Saravana S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. B.S.Sachin, counsel for respondent no.2. Government Pleader is also present.

¶22

This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. by

¶23

accused 1 to 3 for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.85/2019 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC,

¶24

¶25

Ponnampet. They are facing trial in relation to offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC.

¶26

The first petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the second respondent. The marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent took place on 2.2.2017. On 24.7.2019, she made a report to the police alleging ill-treatment by her husband and inlaws. She stated that her husband was having relationship with another woman viz., Kalimada Shalini and when the same was questioned, she was ill-treated and assaulted. Even after the birth of the child, the ill-treatment continued and on 28.10.2018, she was driven out of the house. Thereafter due to intervention of the elders, they started living separately in a rented house. There also ill-treatment

¶27

¶28

continued and therefore she went to police station on 20.3.2019 to make a complaint against the husband and in-laws. The police summoned the husband and warned him. Again another complaint was made. Even then the husband was warned and since he continued the ill-treatment, she had to approach the police station for the 3^rd time on 24.7.2019. This complaint was entertained and FIR was registered.

¶29

The police filed charge sheet after

¶30

investigation. It appears that the second respondent has initiated the proceedings for divorce against the husband by filing M.C.No.36/2020 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet. In the divorce petition also, she has made allegations about cruelty meted out to her and illicit relation of her husband with another woman.

¶31

¶32

It is the argument of the learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioners that allegations against the petitioners

¶34

are false. The police did not entertain the first two complaints made by the wife and they just recorded the NCR. The second respondent has filed divorce petition making the same allegations found in the 3^rd complaint dated 24.7.2019. Therefore, it is his argument because the police did not entertain the first two complaints and that the second respondent has filed the divorce petition, the allegations against the petitioners cannot be per se believed. The charge sheet does not indicate that the petitioners have committed any offence and in this view the charge sheet against the petitioners has to be quashed.

¶35

It is true that on 20.3.2019 and 5.7.2019, the

¶36

second respondent went to police station making allegations against her husband and at that time the police summoned the husband and warned him.

¶37

¶38

Merely because the police did not entertain the first two complaints, it does not mean that they cannot entertain the 3^rd complaint dated 24.7.2019. Probably to see that the husband and wife would lead a happy life, the police might have warned the husband. The second respondent has made clear allegations that the first petitioner has got relationship with another woman by name Kalimada Shalini and in this background the quarrels might have started between them and consequently she used to be harassed. Even if the divorce petition is read, it becomes clear that because of the relationship with another woman, the second respondent appears to have been illtreated and harassed. The materials collected by the investigating officer also disclose that the main reason for the differences between the first petitioner and the second respondent is the illegal relationship.

¶39

¶40

Therefore it cannot be said that there are no allegations against the first petitioner at all.

¶41

So far as the parents are concerned, though it

¶42

is stated in the complaint dated 24.7.2019 that they too supported their son and made demand for dowry, there is no material to substantiate the same. Except these allegations in the complaint and the statements

¶43

of the parents, no other independent witnesses substantiates the same. Therefore it can be stated that probably the second respondent might have roped in the parents also when she gave a complaint to the police. Since I find absolutely no materials against the petitioners 2 and 3, prosecuting them does not appear to be proper.

¶44

Therefore from the above discussion, this petition is to be partly allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 3 in C.C.No.85/2019 on

¶45

¶46

the file of JMFC, Ponnampet are quashed. However the petition stands dismissed as regards the first petitioner.

¶47

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2020 is

¶48

also disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

Mukkatira Neeth Aiyappa v. the State by Ponnampet P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukkatira Neeth Aiyappa v. the State by Ponnampet P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kavya K M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivaprasad Vs State by

The State of West Bengal by Vs the State of Karnataka by

Punith Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R S Kulakarni Vs Sri v Raju

Ramesh @ Ekamabram Vs State of Karnataka