Allowed

Smt Meenakumari v. Sri Siddappa Chandappa

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2022CRL.P/2110/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against petitioner-accused No.3. The court held that since the deceased resided at her parental home for over a year and there was no evidence of recent dowry harassment, essential ingredients of Section 304(B) IPC were not made out.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed and proceedings in C.C.NO.1071/2019 relating to petitioner-accused No.3 quashed.

Smt Meenakumari Vs Sri Siddappa Chandappa — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2110 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT.MEENAKUMARI, D/O SRI. K.H.RAMADAS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.12, 3RD MAIN, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI.SIDDAPPA CHANDAPPA, S/O CHANDAPPA HANUMASAGARA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 10/32, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 29TH MAIN ROAD, SAKAMMA BADAVANE, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 096.

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 096. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R2; SRI.HARISH T.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶17

¶18

ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1071/2019, IN CRIME NO.459/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 304(B) R/W 34 IPC, 3 AND 4 DP ACT, BEFORE THE VII ADDITIONAL C.M.M. AT BANGALORE AND IN NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE AT BANGALORE.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Police after investigation submitted a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, alleging that accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased daughter of CW1 and accused No.2 is Mother-in-law and accused No.3 is the Maternal Aunt of accused No.1 and the daughter of CW1 committed suicide on 15.10.2018 due to the harassment meted out by the accused. Taking exception of the same, petitioneraccused No.3 is before the Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner-accused

¶23

No.3 submits that the death of daughter of CW1 cannot be attributed to the alleged harassment meted out by petitioner-accused No.3, since she was

¶24

¶25

residing at her parental home since one and half year from the date of the alleged incident and as such in the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304(B) of IPC, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is without any substance. She further submits that petitioner-accused No.3 has been implicated by CW1 in the further statement recorded after 72 days from the date of registration of F.I.R. which clearly implies that the petitioner-accused No.3 has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with revengeful intent.

¶26

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, submit that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that due to the harassment meted out by petitioner-accused No.3, the daughter of CW1 committed suicide and Police have rightly filed charge sheet against petitioner-accused No.3 and the same

¶27

¶28

does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

I have considered the submission made by

¶30

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The marriage of accused No.1 with daughter of CW1 was solemnized on 24.03.2016 and it is also undisputed that accused No.1 had filed petition in M.C.No.2424/2017 for dissolving his marriage with deceased daughter of CW1 on the grounds of cruelty, which clearly implies that the daughter of CW1 was residing at her parental home since one and half year from the date of the alleged incident. The allegation in the FIR also discloses that the daughter of CW1 was staying at her parental home since one and half year from the date of incident.

¶32

To constitute the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC, the death of a woman must be caused within seven years of her marriage and

¶33

¶34

should be as a result of harassment or cruelty meted out to her by her husband or any relative of her husband or in connection with any demand of dowry. In the present case, the wife of accused No.1 was residing at her parental home since one and half year from the date of alleged incident and there is no material produced along with charge sheet that immediately before the date of incident she was subjected to harassment physically or mentally with regard to demand of dowry by petitioner-accused No.3.

¶35

Even otherwise petitioner-accused No.3 has been implicated on the basis of the statement of CW1 which was recorded after 72 days from the date of the alleged incident and the same is reiterated by CWs.2 to 4, 7 to 9 and 11. Hence, it clearly implies that petitioner-accused No.3 has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against petitioner-accused No.3. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶39

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.1071/2019 pending on the file of

¶40

VII Additional C.M.M. at Bengaluru insofar it relates

¶41

to petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned is hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

GPG

Smt Meenakumari v. Sri Siddappa Chandappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meenakumari v. Sri Siddappa Chandappa

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

Abdul Rehaman Vs H B Mohammed

Sri N G Chandregowda Vs State by Saraswathipuram Police Station

J Gnanendra Kumar Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. Ravi Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mahaveer Traders Vs the Director of Agriculture Marketing

Mr. Achuta Bhat Vs State of Karnataka through