Dismissed

Smt Nalini N v. State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2021CRL.P/439/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka considered a criminal petition filed to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that specific allegations of dowry demand and cruelty required police investigation, rejecting the petition and allowing a fresh approach if the final report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; liberty to approach court after filing of final report if needed.

Smt Nalini N Vs State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.439/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NALINI N, W/O MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.341/B, 17^TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098.

¶9

SRI MAHESH KUMAR S, S/O P. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.341/B 17^TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶10

SMT. SHIVANI M, D/O MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.35/27, PANCHAMUKHI BUILDING, 5^TH CROSS, LIC COLONY, JAYANAGAR, 3^RD BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶11

SMT. SANDHYA N, W/O BHASKARA C.P., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶12

¶13

RESIDING AT NO.341/B, 1^ST PHASE, IDEAL HOMES, KENCHANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 098. … PETITIONERS

¶14

[BY SRI K.S.NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE]

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶17

SMT. SANDYA A.P., D/O AREKAL PRAKASH, AGED 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.NIL, RAMASHRI MARKET ROAD, BIRUR, KADUR TALUK-577116, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (THOUGH V.C.)]

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.318/2020 FILED BY RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

¶23

this Court to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.318/2020, pending on the file of III ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶24

¶25

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint dated 11.12.2020 making the allegation in the complaint that the petitioners herein have received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- cash apart from the gold ornaments at the time of the marriage. It is also an allegation in the complaint that after the marriage, respondent No.2 has joined her matrimonial home and she was taken care for a period of 2-3 months and thereafter the petitioners have subjected her for cruelty and also demanded additional dowry. It is also an allegation that she was assaulted by the petitioners and even inspite a panchayat was held, the petitioners have not heed to the advice of the panchayatdars. Hence, based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the allegations made in the complaint are false. Legal notice was issued on 5.10.2020 and subsequent to the legal notice, present complaint is filed and the complaint is an after thought and it is nothing but an abuse of Court

¶27

¶28

process and if the FIR is continued, it leads to miscarriage of justice.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 – State would submit that in the complaint specific allegations are made invoking the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A of IPC. The Court has to look into the contents of the complaint whether it prima facie discloses offence invoked or not and if prima facie allegations disclose, the Court should not venture to act like Investigating Officer or appreciate the material on record as a Appellate Court. The Court has to allow the Investigating Officer to probe and unearth the crime.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the complaint dated 11.12.2020, which is annexed as Annexure-B, specific allegation is made against all the petitioners that there were all present at the time of marriage talks and demanded and received Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry. It is also an allegation in the complaint

¶31

¶32

that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and assault and the petitioners demanded additional dowry. When the complaint depicts the specific allegation against all the petitioners by referring the incident of assault and also additional dowry demand and also acceptance of dowry, at the stage of registration of the case, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is the job of the Investigating Officer to probe into the crime when the specific allegations are made in the complaint. If the complaint does not disclose the allegations of committing of offence, then at that juncture the Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings or otherwise the Court has to allow the Investigating Officer to probe and unearth the crime as held by the Apex Court in the case of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104.

¶33

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶34

following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The petition is rejected.

¶37

¶38

(ii) However, the petitioners are given liberty to approach this Court after filing of the final report, if need arises.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Smt Nalini N v. State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nalini N v. State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

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

Sri Vijaykumar Vs Smt Sworaba Gopinath

Krishnamurthy Y Vs State by Malur Police

Smt. S G Meghana Vs Sri Amith Telkar

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Somashekar K M Vs Anti Curruption Bureau

Sri. Y. Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka