Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to discharge petitioners charged with dowry-demand offences. High Court rejected the petition, holding statements recorded after a delay prima facie indicated offence commission and no infirmity existed in the charge sheet.
Criminal petition for discharge dismissed; impost order stands.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5842 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
Permanently R/at No.53, 10th Main, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560040.
Also at No.512, Opposite Ganesha Temple, Giridarshini Layout, Alanahalli, Mysuru-570028.
…Petitioners
(By Smt. K.Abhinaya, Advocate)
AND:
:: 2 ::
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.
…Respondents
(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1; R2- Served. Unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge at Mysuru on 26.06.2019 and further be pleased to discharge them of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and Sessions 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act, in S.C.No.119/2017 now pending before the V Additional Sessions Judge, at Mysuru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admisssion this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Smt. Abhinaya K, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
:: 3 ::
Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but there is no representation on his behalf.
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to discharge them off the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are accused 5 and 6 in S.C.No.119/2017 pending on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru.
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court seeking their discharge, but the learned trial judge dismissed the said application on 26.06.2019.
:: 4 ::
mentioning their names in the subject portion and nowhere in the body of the complaint their names are forthcoming. She also submits that the petitioners are residing in Bengaluru and even the charge sheet does not disclose the overt-acts attributable to them in that they instigated the other accused to demand for dowry and subjecting the deceased for harassment.
:: 5 ::
the ground that the charge sheet materials do not indicate their participation in commission of the crime. The deceased is the wife of the first accused. CW1 and CW2 are the parents of the deceased. It is true that in the FIR there are no allegations. Their names are written in the subject portion of the complaint made by the father of the deceased. But during investigation, statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded and perusal of the same indicate that the petitioners were very much present at the time of marriage negotiations and that they too put forth demand for dowry along with other accused persons. The statements further disclose that the petitioners used to instigate the other accused, i.e., husband and mother-in-law of the deceased to drive her out of the house. The trial Court has clearly observed in its order dated 26.06.2019, on the application made under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., that the
:: 6 ::
statements of CW1 and CW2 cannot be brushed aside and their statements prima-facie indicate that the deceased used to be ill-treated on the instigation of accused 5 and 6. It is also observed that accused 5 and 6 approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.8326/2017 for quashing the FIR and it was not entertained.
:: 7 ::
or not. Therefore I do not find any good ground to admit this petition. It is dismissed .
IA No.1/2021 does not survive for
consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/JUDGE
Kmv/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to discharge the petitioners who were dismissed from their charge application in a dowry death case.
Whether the statements of witnesses recorded after a delay sufficiently prima facie indicate the commission of offence to prevent discharge.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M.Sowbhagya
Umashankar
State of Karnataka
Shantesh S.
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
