Partly allowed

Dr Raghavendra K v. State by Bangalore District Women'S Police Station

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2021CRL.P/820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR for dowry harassment. The Court held that specific allegations existed against the husband and mother-in-law, but none against the father-in-law. Consequently, the proceedings against the father-in-law were quashed as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Initiation of proceedings against the father-in-law in Crime No. 2/2021 is quashed; prayers against husband and mother-in-law are rejected.

Dr Raghavendra K Vs State by Bangalore District Women'S… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.820 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . DR. RAGHAVENDRA K S/O R KRISHNAPPA AGED 36 YEARS,

¶8

2 . SMT. K S NANJAMMA @ SHOBHA W/O R KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶9

3 . SRI R KRISHNAPPA S/O K RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶10

ALL RESIDING AT # 293 SHIVANI NILAYA, NEAR/ NEXT TO BSA SCHOOL ROJEEPURA DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶11

..PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT.DEEPA.V, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . STATE BY BANGALORE DISTRICT WOMEN’S POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY

¶15

¶16

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 002.

¶17

2 . DR. MEENA R W/O DR. RAGHAVENDRA K RESIDING AT No.293, SHIVANI NILAYA, NEAR/ NEXT TO BSA SCHOOL ROOJEPURA, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶18

WORKING AT C-2, NORA INS RAJALI, ARAKKONAM TAMIL NADU-631 006. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.No.2/2021 REGISTERED BY THE BENGALURU DISTRICT WOMENS P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF D.P ACT ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.2/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶24

Factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein filed complaint before the police making allegations against the petitioners and that her marriage was solemnized in 2015. The respondent No.2 in the complaint made allegations more specifically against her husband and also made allegations against mother-in-law and that she has snatched her gold ornaments which was given to her

¶25

at the time of marriage. It is also allegation against husband and in-laws that they were abusing her in the

¶26

¶27

presence of relatives. It is also allegation that they demanded additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and also husband was not treating her properly and she was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty. Based on the complaint police have registered a case in Crime No.2/2021. Hence present petition is filed by husband as well as in-laws. The main contention is that the allegations made in the complaint does not attract the offence stated above.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contended that the main allegation is against husband and not in-laws and hence initiation of proceedings against in-laws is abuse of process.

¶29

Per contra, learned HCGP for the State contends that specific allegations are made in the complaint against mother-in-law as well as husband

¶30

¶31

and only law is set in motion by registering FIR and it requires investigation.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for

¶33

petitioners and learned HCGP for the State contends that while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and that too while quashing of registration of FIR, the court has to look into the contents of the complaint.

¶34

Having perused the contents of complaint,

¶35

nodoubt specific allegations are made against the husband of respondent No.2 and specific allegation made against mother-in-law is that she was abusing the complainant when talking with her relatives. It is also allegation against mother-in-law that she has snatched gold ornaments of complainant.

¶36

¶37

7. Having perused the complaint, except

¶38

omnibus allegations against father-in-law that he was abusing her in the presence of relatives, there are no averments made in the complaint against father-inlaw to invoke Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶39

Having perused the complaint averments specific averments are made against husband and mother-in-law and no specific allegations are made against father-in-law which amounts to abuse of process which leads to miscarriage of justice. In the absence of prima facie allegations in the complaint against father-in-law and if the same is allowed to continue, it is nothing but an abuse of process.

¶40

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering

¶41

quashing of FIR, principles are also summarized and

¶42

¶43

held that court should not venture to collect material and Investigating officer to be allowed to investigate the crime. No prima facie case against petitioner No.3-father-in-law, hence I am of the opinion it requires interference. While exercising power under Section 482 court has to exercise sparingly when the abuse is apparent on record.

¶44

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶47

ii) The initiation of proceedings against fatherin-law-petitioner No.3 herein in Crime No.2 of 2021, which is pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Doddaballapura, for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with

¶48

¶49

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed.

¶50

Prayer of petitioners 1 and 2 is rejected.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

SBN

Dr Raghavendra K v. State by Bangalore District Women'S Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Raghavendra K v. State by Bangalore District Women'S Police Station

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. Srinivas. v Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri K.S. Parveez Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh R, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shekhar G.M. Vs Shreyas Hind Chit India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Lala Naveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Machimada Gini Vs the State by