Allowed

Miss Prema v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2021WP/39225/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing lower orders dismissing a discharge application. The Court found the subsequent prosecution complaint groundless as it was based on an earlier closed inquiry where the police found no case for dowry harassment. The petitioner was discharged of charges under IPC 498A/506 and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders allowing discharge; petitioner discharged of offences under IPC 498A, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act.

Miss Prema Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.39225/2015 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MISS PREMA D/O. RAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.104, FRUIT STREET KAMARAJAR STREET BANGALORE- 560 042 …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI B.A.BELLIAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE ULSOOR GATE WOMEN POLICE STATION ULSOOR GATE, BENGALURU-560 002

¶13

R.HEMALATHA W/O. KRISHNA MURTHY NO.55, HUDSON ROAD 3^RD CROSS, ST.THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU- 560 084 …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH, B.G., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/C/O DATED 21.01.2019)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-9, BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.R.P.NO.175/2014 ETC.

¶16

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of her application for discharge by the trial Court and the confirmation of the same by revisional Court, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶21

The petitioner was accused No.4 in

¶22

C.C.No.14113/2012 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Accused No.1 is her brother, accused Nos.2 and 3 are her mother and father.

¶23

C.C.No.14113/2012 was registered against the petitioner and other accused on the basis of the charge sheet filed by respondent No.1 police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.4/2012 of their police station.

¶24

Crime No.4/2012 was registered against the petitioner and other accused on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2. For the purpose of convenience,

¶25

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶26

¶27

the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the trial Court.

¶28

The marriage of accused No.1 and the complainant was solemnized on 25.04.2010. On 08.12.2010, the complainant filed her first complaint as per Annexure-B alleging that she hardly lived for one month in the matrimonial home and she is living in her parental house since seven months prior to the complaint. She further alleged that there used to be quarrels between her and her husband (Accused No.1) for petty matters. Therefore she is living in her parental house. She further stated that in her matrimonial home, her husband, her in laws are living and she wants to lead cordial life with her husband, therefore action shall be taken in that direction.

¶29

In that complaint, absolutely no allegations of demand or acceptance of dowry or cruelty in connection with dowry were made. Respondent No.1 registered the said complaint in NCR No.579/2010 and closed the matter. After about more than one year on 04.01.2012, she filed another complaint before respondent No.1 as per

¶30

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶31

¶32

Annexure-C alleging that during marriage, accused demanded and accepted dowry. She further alleged that during her stay in the matrimonial home, all the accused including the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their demand for additional dowry and on other pretext also.

¶33

On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.4/2012 against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, respondent No.1 police charge sheeted the accused as aforesaid and were being prosecuted in C.C.No.14113/2012.

¶34

Accused Nos.2 to 4 filed Crl.P.No.7151/2012 before this Court seeking quashing of the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.14113/2012. This Court vide order dated 06.08.2013 as per Annexure-E dismissed the said petition holding that the contentions raised in the petition may constitute defence of the accused during trial.

¶35

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶36

¶37

Accused Nos.2 to 4 challenged the said order

¶38

of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.10367/2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order Annexure-F dated 06.01.2014 dismissed the special leave petition with observation that the said order shall not prevent the petitioners therein from urging all such points at the time of framing of the charges.

¶39

Accused filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking their discharge. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused.

¶40

Accused challenged the said order in Crl.R.P.No.175/2014 before Fast Track Court-9 Bengaluru City. The Revisional Court by impugned order Annexure-A dismissed the revision petition on the ground that this Court in Crl.P.No.7151/2012 has held that the grounds raised by the accused may constitute defence during trial and that was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶41

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶42

¶43

The application of the petitioner for discharge

¶44

is governed by Section 239 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

¶45

“239. When accused shall be discharged. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”

¶46

Reading of the above provision makes it clear that while considering the discharge application, the Magistrate shall consider the charge sheet materials, as well as the documents/evidence produced by the accused and hear both of them. On consideration of that, if the charge is found groundless, the Court shall discharge the accused.

¶47

The question is whether the petitioner satisfies that the charges alleged against her were groundless. As admitted by the complainant herself she lived hardly for less than one month in the matrimonial home. In the first

¶48

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶49

¶50

complaint filed by her on 08.12.2010, absolutely there was no allegation of demand or acceptance of dowry or cruelty in connection with any such demand or other pretext. One year thereafter she comes up with another complaint making allegations of demand and acceptance of dowry and harassment.

¶51

The complainant/respondent No.2 though served has not chosen to appear in this matter to deny filing of the earlier complaint or closure of the same. She has not questioned registration of the earlier complaint as non-cognizable case or closure of the same. In the light of the earlier complaint, it becomes clear that subsequent complaint against the petitioner is groundless. However, the Courts below lost sight of the said fact.

¶52

The revisional Court only based on the order passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave petition dismissed the revision petition. The Revisional Court lost sight of the fact that accused were given liberty to file discharge application. Therefore the impugned orders of dismissal of the application for

¶53

W.P.No.39225/2015

¶54

¶55

discharge suffer infirmity, impropriety or illegality.

¶56

Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶57

The impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner’s application for discharge and confirmation of the same by the revisional Court are hereby set aside.

¶58

The application of the petitioner/accused No.4 for discharge is hereby allowed. She is discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

KSR

Miss Prema v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Prema 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

B S Nagaraj Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Mr Hitesh Shamji Gala Vs Mrs Bhavna Hitesh Gala

Mohan Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka by

Babumiyan @ Babusab S/O Ismailsab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K M Chikkamadanayaka Vs District Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe

Achabba. a Vs the Superintendent of Police