Allowed

Sri A.C. Chennaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2021CRL.P/953/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings for dowry-related offences. Court held specific allegations in complaint were absent against petitioners despite Section 161 statements. Proceeding would be abuse of process. Petition allowed and proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings initiated against petitioners in C.C.No.8047/2020 for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

Sri A.C. Chennaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.953/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI A.C. CHENNAIAH S/O CHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶9

2 . SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O A.C.CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT ARJUNAHALLI, KILARA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572111.

¶11

3 . SRI.A.C.SATHISH S/O A.C.CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.521, 15^TH CROSS, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, CHOKKASANDRA, DASARAHALLI BENGALURU NORTH-560057.

¶12

… PETITIONERS (BY SRI ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY,

¶15

¶16

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

2 . SMT.PRATHIMA W/O LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.139, BINDU AMULYA APARTMENT, MUDDINAPALYA ROAD, ANJANA NAGARA, BENGALURU CITY-560 0091.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G.,HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8047/2020 (CR.NO.135/2020 BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT ON THE FILE OF C.J.M, BENGALURU RURUAL DISTRICT, 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 C.C.No.8047/2020

¶24

for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read

¶25

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

¶26

¶27

Prohibition Act pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengalurur Rural District at Bengaluru.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein had filed the complaint before the police vide complaint dated 21.05.2020 alleging that prior to the marriage, they had demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, 500 grams of gold, 500 grams of silver articles and one site, for which, her parents agreed to give 250 grams of gold, 500 grams of silver articles and Rs.50,000/- towards suit and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and performed the marriage at West of Chord Road, Shivaprabha Kalyana Mantapa. It is also an averment made in the complaint that they were staying in an

¶29

apartment in the rented house, where the husband of the complainant subjected her for both mental and physical harassment and also demanded an additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs for purchase of the flat. She was subjected to an abuse demanding an additional dowry. In the complaint, an allegation is also made that by suspecting her accused No.1 proceeded along with his parents without informing her. The father,

¶30

¶31

mother and brother of the husband used to call him repeatedly and asked him to come out deserting his wife and since they were instigating her husband, he was subjecting the complainant for both mental and physical harassment. The police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the above said offences. The police have recorded the statements of the mother and father of the complainant, wherein they have stated that at the time of marriage talks, the petitioners had demanded an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and other gold ornaments.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no averment in the complaint that these petitioners had demanded the money and it is only an omnibus allegation being made that they demanded an amount of Rs.5 lakhs, gold ornaments and also a site. Only in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., an allegation is made that they demanded an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. On going through the complaint averments, it is specific that the allegations are made only against the husband.

¶33

¶34

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that in the 161 statements of the mother and father of respondent No.2, it has been clearly stated that that these petitioners had also demanded the dowry. Hence, there is material against these petitioners also.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶36

and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no specific averment against these petitioners that they demanded the money and only an omnibus allegations are that they demanded an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and other articles. No doubt, in the statements of father and mother of respondent No.2, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is stated that the petitioners herein had demanded the dowry, but in order to substantiate the said statements, no other witnesses have spoken with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry. The complaint allegation is general in nature and no specific averment is made against these petitioners that they

¶37

¶38

demanded for dowry. However, the improvement is found only in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶39

When such being the case and in the absence of any material placed before the Court, continuing of the proceedings against these the petitioners herein amounts to an abuse of process or otherwise it amounts to miscarriage of justice. In the absence of any material, particularly in the complaint, there is no specific allegation except mentioning that her husband proceeded along with his parents, who instigated him to desert his wife and to live with them. Hence, the same does not constitute any offences invoked as such against these petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶43

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the

¶44

petitioners herein in C.C.No.8047/2020 for the

¶45

¶46

offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.

¶47

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A., if any does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

PYR

Sri A.C. Chennaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri A.C. Chennaiah v. 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

Pradeepa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu. v Vs State of Karnataka

Makmur Pasha Vs State by Sub Inspector of Police

Bharatesh Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anil Kumar v Vs State of Karnataka