Dismissed

Sri Raghavendra J v. State by Kanakapura Town Police

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2021CRL.P/7481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single bench of the Karnataka High Court examined petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR alleging matrimonial offences, dowry harassment, and assault. The court held that the complaint discloses cognizable offences and directed police investigation, rejecting the quashing petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions rejected with liberty to approach the court after filing of the Final Report.

Sri Raghavendra J Vs State by Kanakapura Town Police — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3998/2020

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7481/2020, 7526/2020 AND 7528/2020

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3998/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Smt. Rekha K J W/o Kiran Aged 33 years Engineer by profession R/at No.202

¶11

I Cross, Janatha Street

¶12

Near Bananthamaramma Temple Bananthmaramma Layout Ramanagar District-562 117.

¶13

Smt. Annapurna K J W/o Ramesh A M Advocate Aged 36 years R/at Mathapitru III Cross, Gopala Guthyappa Colony Gopala Extension Shivamogga-577 205.

¶14

¶15

A M Ramesh S/o A N Manjappa Aged 45 years II Cross, Janatha Street Ashok Nagar Shivamogga-577 205.

¶16

Kiran Kumar M S/o Mariswamy H V Aged 36 years R/at 29/2, 13^th Cross I Main, Niduvalli Road KTJ Nagar, Davanagere-577 002.

¶17

Smt. Nagarathna Aged 51 years Labour R/at Kanakapura Town Ramanagar District-562 117.

¶18

... Petitioners

¶19

(By Shri H C Shivaramu, Advocate)

¶20

AND:

¶21

The State of Karnataka By Kanakapura Town P.S. By State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru-560 001.

¶22

Smt. Swathi W/o Raghavendra Aged 31 Years R/at Raghavendra Nilaya

¶23

¶24

Brundavananagar Kanakapura Town-562 117.

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

(By Shri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Shri P P Hegde, Advocate for Shri Harshith B, Advocae for R2)

¶27

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash FIR initiated against petitioner i.e, A4 to A8 in Cr. No.100 of 2019 of Kanakapura Town P.S., for the alleged offences under Section 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 114 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, of D.P Act pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7481/2020

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

Sri Raghavendra J S/o K Jayaram Aged about 34 years No.202, Ward No.7 Bananthamaramma Ext. Kanakapura Town Taluk Ramanagara District-562 117.

¶31

... Petitioner

¶32

(By Shri Ananda V., Advocate)

¶33

AND:

¶34

State by Kanakapura Town Police Kanakapura Town Kanakapura Represented by Special Public Prosecutor.

¶35

¶36

Smt. Swathi S

¶37

W/o Raghavendra Raj D/o Sathyanarayanamurthy Aged about 31 Years R/at Behind Old Gowri Theatre Ramanahalli Chikkamagaluru Town Chikkamagaluru-577 101.

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

(By Shri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Shri P P Hegde, Advocate for Shri Harshith B, Advocate for R2)

¶40

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the FIR in Cr. No.100 of 2019 for the alleged offences P/U/S 498A, 504, 506,323, 114 and 324 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 of D.P Act by the jurisdictional Kanakapura Town Police and placed on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶41

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7526/2020

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

Sri Jayaram K S/o Kenchappa Aged about 62 years No.202, Ward No.7 Bananthamaramma Ext. Kanakapura Town Taluk Ramanagara District-562 117.

¶44

... Petitioner

¶45

(By Shri Ananda V., Advocate)

¶46

¶47

AND:

¶48

State by Kanakapura Town Police Kanakapura Town Kanakapura Ramanagara District-562 117. Represented by Special Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.

¶49

Smt. Swathi S W/o Raghavendra Raj D/o Sathyanarayanamurthy Aged about 31 Years R/at Behind Old Gowri Theatre Ramanahalli Chikkamagaluru Town Chikkamagaluru-577 101.

¶50

... Respondents

¶51

(By Shri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Shri P P Hegde, Advocate for Shri Harshith B, Advocae for R2)

¶52

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the FIR in Cr. No.100 of 2019 for the alleged offences P/U/S 498A, 504, 506, 323, 114 and 324 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 of D.P Act by the jurisdictional Kanakapura Town Police and placed on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶53

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7528/2020

¶54

BETWEEN:

¶55

Smt. Jayamma W/o K Jayaram Aged about 58 years

¶56

¶57

No.202, Ward No.7 Bananthamaramma Ext. Kanakapura Town Taluk Ramanagara District-562 117.

¶58

... Petitioner

¶59

(By Shri Ananda V., Advocate)

¶60

AND:

¶61

State by Kanakapura Town Police Kanakapura Town Kanakapura Represented by Special Public Prosecutor.

¶62

Smt. Swathi S W/o Raghavendra Raj D/o Sathyanarayanamurthy Aged about 31 Years R/at Behind Old Gowri Theatre Ramanahalli Chikkamagaluru Town Chikkamagaluru-577 101.

¶63

... Respondents

¶64

(By Shri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Shri P P Hegde, Advocate for Shri Harshith B, Advocae for R2)

¶65

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the FIR in CR. No.100 of 2019 for the alleged offences P/U/S 498A, 504, 506, 323, 114 and 324 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 of D.P Act by the jurisdictional Kanakapura Town Police and placed on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶66

These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:-

¶67

¶68

ORDER

¶69

These petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.100/2019 of Kanakapura Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506, 114 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act.

¶70

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein has filed a complaint before the police on 25.10.2019 making allegations against all these petitioners and also accused Nos.9 and 10 that her marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2016 and at the time of marriage, they have taken dowry of Rs.8.00 lakhs and 5 grams of gold ornaments. The marriage was performed at Sindura Kalyana Mantapa at Bengaluru. It is also the allegation in the complaint that prior to the marriage engagement was performed on 25.02.2016. The amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs was transferred by way of RTGS to the account of father-in-law of respondent No.2. It is also the allegation in the complaint

¶71

¶72

that an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs was given as a rent in respect of Sindura Kalyana Mantapa and same was given to the father-in-law. It is also the allegation in the complaint that even though she was pregnant, she was subjected to both mental and cruelty by all these petitioners. It is also the allegation in the complaint that she was subjected to abuse and filthy language and her parents also spent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for naming ceremony of the baby and also subjected her for getting additional dowry. In the complaint, the specific allegation made on 15.07.2018 is that her sisterin-law Rekha and her husband and elder sister-in-law and her husband came in connection with birthday ceremony of sister-in-law Rekha’s child and on that day also she was subjected to both mental and physical harassment and started to assault and abuse her. Sister-in-law Rekha assaulted her with stick and another sister-in-law Annapoorna and her husband assaulted her with hands and as a result, she has sustained injuries and also snatched the baby from her arms. They blackmailed that they are going to

¶73

¶74

commit the murder of the baby, if she gives a complaint. It is

¶75

also the allegation in the complaint that all of them have requested not to give any complaint. Hence, complaint is given only in respect of the driver of the car in connection with the subsequent incident dated 13.03.2019 when she was subjected to assault. The police have issued NCR No.10/2019. It is also alleged in the complaint that the incident was witnessed by the neighbourers when they left the house leaving her and neighbourers made a accommodation to her in lodge when they left her. Subsequently, she also came back to the house of petitioners herein and that on 08.04.2019 also these petitioners have secured 15 to 20 rowdy elements and assaulted her and driven out her from the house by her husband causing damage to the mobile phone and this incident was also witnessed by the neighbourers. She was left alone on 30.04.2019 and subsequently, on receiving of Rs.2.00 lakhs and again she was taken to matrimonial house and she was subjected to harassment. Based on the complaint, police have

¶76

¶77

registered the case. Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.

¶78

The counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that out of eight accused two are engineers and two are advocates and in laws are also arrived as accused persons. The counsel vehemently contended that the alleged accident was taken place on 15.07.2018 and complaint was given on 25.10.2019 almost after one year three months. The counsel also submitted that matrimonial case was filed and decree for divorce was granted on 17.12.2019 and the marriage was dissolved. It is also the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that this complaint is offshoot of the complaint given by the father-in-law which has been numbered as Crime No.41/2019. The counsel also contended that miscellaneous petition is filed which is numbered as 236/2019 wherein no specific allegations are made. The counsel also brought to the notice with regard to exchange of notice of filing divorce petition where in the reply, it is

¶79

¶80

contended that they have received Rs.8.00 lakhs as loan and not as dowry amount as alleged in the complaint. It clearly disclose that the complaint has been filed only with an intention to harass the petitioners herein and hence, it is appropriate case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C or otherwise it amounts to abuse of process.

¶81

Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that the complaint averments is specific with regard to each of the overt act of the petitioners herein and she was subjected to both physical and mental harassment. When the specific allegations are made in the complaint, the scope of Section 482 of Cr.PC while invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR, the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint and not any other material it has to be considered at the time of trial. The disputed question cannot be decided under section 482 of Cr.P.C and Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to be exercised sparingly and content that it is a case for investigation when

¶82

¶83

a specific allegations are made in the complaint. It is settled principle of law that the Investigating Officer has to investigate the matter and file a Final Report. The Court at this juncture could not venture and evaluate the evidence available on record wherein there is a defence available to the petitioners or not. Hence, it is a case for investigation.

¶84

Per contra, the counsel for State submitted that on going through the complaint averments, specific allegations are made in the complaint and hence, the matter has to be probed.

¶85

Having heard the learned appearing for petitioners, respective counsel for the State and respondent No.2, this Court has to examine the material available on record wherein it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. It is also settled law that the Court has to look into compliant while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court has referred to the judgment in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel V/s State of Gujarath and

¶86

¶87

others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 wherein the Apex Court also summarised the principles with regard to context of FIR. In this judgment the Apex Court has held that if complaint averments prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, the High Court should not venture to prevent in collecting the materials and also not appreciate the evidence like an Appellate Court. Once the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer has to probe and unearth the crime. In view of the judgment referred supra, this Court has to ascertain as to whether it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also the settled principle of law that Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to be exercised sparingly when Court comes to a conclusion that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law to quash the FIR. In the present case on hand, no doubt the complaint was given on 25.10.2019 and the very contention of the petitioners’ counsel, incident was on 15.07.2018 and having gone through the contents of the complaint, the complaint does not

¶88

¶89

disclose only the incident on 15.07.2018 and it discloses the different dates of incident i.e. 15.07.2018, 13.03.2019 and also issuance of NCR No.9/2010 and the dates 08.04.2019 and 30.04.2019. In the complaint specific allegations are made in overtact of each of the petitioners. The complaint was given only against the driver of the car. When the specific allegations are made in the complaint with regard to both mental and physical harassment and also assault was made against the complainant and she was subjected to abuse and causing of threat, the complaint averments discloses commission of cognizable offence and also other non cognizable offence with regard to facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt there is contradiction in the reply and also complaint averments with regard to giving dowry and acceptance of the dowry which is brought to the notice of this Court that in the reply it is specifically mentioned that the amount was borrowed and not as a dowry. With regard to other allegations of assault and also causing life threat and abuse also, the matter has to be investigated. The law is set

¶90

¶91

in motion based on the complaint. Having perused the contents of the complaint, it is a fit case to conduct the investigation and not the case for exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At this juncture, however, the petitioners can be given liberty to approach this Court after filing of Final Report after the investigation if need arises. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

The Petitions are rejected with liberty to approach this Court after filing of the Final Report.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

Sri Raghavendra J v. State by Kanakapura Town Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raghavendra J v. State by Kanakapura Town Police

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 Kemparaju B H Vs the State of Karnataka

Bandi Sundeep Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Upendra Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Rekha K.J. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State by Kanakapura Town Police

Smt.Neelamma Vs State of Karnataka