Dismissed

Dr Upendra Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021CRL.P/787/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that disputed questions regarding dowry demand and witness credibility require a full-fledged trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 787 of 2020 was rejected with no relief granted to the petitioners regarding the quashing of proceedings.

Dr Upendra Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 787 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Dr. Upendra Kumar

¶8

S/o. Mahalingappa, Aged about 34 years, Dental Surgeon, R/at Subramanya Nagar, PWD Road, Turuvekere Town

¶9

And Taluk, Tumkur District-572227.

¶10

Mahalingappa G.S.,

¶11

S/o. Shivananjappa, Aged about 64 years, Retired person, R/at Subramanya Nagar, PWD Road, Turuvekere Town and Taluk, Tumkur District-572227.

¶12

Mangalamma,

¶13

W/o. Mahalingappa G.S., Aged about 58 years, R/at Subramanya Nagar, PWD Road, Turuvekere Town & Taluk, Tumkur District-572227.

¶14

...Petitioners

¶15

(By Sri. Shiva Prasad Y.S., Advocate) (Absent)

¶16

AND:

¶17

The State of Karnataka, By Women Police Station, Tumkur

¶18

¶19

Represented by S.P.P., High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.

¶20

Manasa T.S., W/o. Dr. Upendra Kumar, Aged about 32 years, R/at 4^th Cross, Maruthinagar, Tumkur Town-04.

¶21

…Respondents

¶22

(By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, HCGP, for R1, Sri. Shanmukhappa, Advocate, for R2)

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings including order dated 06.11.2019 registration of case (filing of charge sheet) in C.C.No.240/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act pending on the file of the 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition was listed on 28.1.2021 and the

¶27

petitioners counsel was absent in the morning as well as in the afternoon session. However, this court granted an opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner and listed the matter today. Today also he is absent.

¶28

This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C praying this court to quash C.C. No. 240/2019 for the

¶29

¶30

offences punishable under sections 498A, 504, 506 read with section 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumkuru.

¶31

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint before the police making the allegation against the petitioners herein that they have subjected the complainant/respondent No.2 to cruelty and also abused her and caused life threat. It is the allegation that prior to the marriage also, they received dowry and subsequent to the marriage, they demanded additional dowry.

¶32

Based on the complaint, a case has been registered for the above offences, investigation is conducted and charge sheet is filed.

¶33

The petitioners in the petition have contended that on a plain reading of the complaint, the same does not constitute the offences to be invoked against the

¶34

¶35

petitioners. The allegations made in the complaint are that she was subjected to harassment at her matrimonial home, Turuvekere, but she did not foist any complaint at Turuvekere. It is also the allegation that only on 12.6.2019, the petitioners along with 4-5 persons had been to her parents house and demanded to give consent for divorce. It is contended that it is purely a well planned and well designed by the complainant since the petitioners did not oblige to her say. Moreover a reading of the entire averments of the complaint and material available on record, on what date the demand of dowry has been made by the petitioner has not been stated. Essential ingredients of section 498A are also not stated. Only with an intention to harass the petitioners, the present complaint is filed with an oblique motive. For invoking the provisions under sections 504 and 506 IPC, there is no material before the court and hence it requires interference by this court.

¶36

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the complaint averments specifically discloses regarding demand of dowry prior to the marriage and also subsequent to the marriage. It is also an allegation in the complaint that she was subjected to cruelty and there is also an allegation in the complaint that if she gives any complaint, they are going to take away the life of the complainant. Counsel also would submit that the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and there are eye witnesses to the incident, i.e., CWs 6 and 7 and the other witnesses also gave a statement with regard to participation of these petitions and also subsequently subjecting the complainant for harassment.

¶38

Counsel appearing for the State would submit that the complaint discloses the ingredients of offences under sections 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC. Apart from that police have investigated and charge sheet is filed. CW6 and CW7 are the eye witnesses to the incident subjecting her for abuse and life threat.

¶39

¶40

Having perused the grounds of the petition and also the submission of both the respondents’ counsel and having perused the complaint, specific allegations are made in the complaint that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2013 and complaint was given in 2019. The allegation that they have given a Skoda car, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.80 to 90 lakhs is spent for the marriage. It is also alleged in the complaint that after the marriage, they looked after her very well for a period of one year and thereafter started abusing respondent No.2 both mentally and physically. CWs6 and 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident and other witnesses are father of the complainant, CW2 and, CW3 is the mother and CW4 is the witness who participated in the marriage talks. CW5 has also participated in the marriage talks regarding demand and acceptance, CWs4 and 5 speak about the same. Having perused the material on record, the statements of the eye witnesses and the statement given by the other witnesses who participated in the marriage talks before the

¶41

investigating officer, cannot be appreciated in a proceeding under section 482 of Cr.P.C. It requires a full fledged trial. The allegations found against these petitioners are that they subjected the complainant both mentally and physically, demanding and acceptance of the dowry and thereafter also continued demanding of dowry. Hence, such being the facts and circumstances of the case, disputed question of demand and acceptance of dowry cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The truthfulness of the statement also cannot be ascertained in the present petition.

¶42

In view of the above discussions, I pass the

¶43

following : -

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Petition is rejected.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

ckl

Dr Upendra Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Upendra Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nalini N Vs State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

Mr. Somashekar K M Vs Anti Curruption Bureau

Sri. Nagaraju B H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kemparaju B H Vs the State of Karnataka

Bandi Sundeep Vs State of Karnataka