Partly allowed

Smt Gowramma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2022CRL.P/3538/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A and 304B IPC against in-laws accused of dowry harassment and suicide. Court quashed proceedings against parents-in-law due to lack of essential ingredients regarding recent cruelty at victim's residence.

What did the court decide?

Provisions of C.C.No.4199/2019 insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby quashed.

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3538 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶9

SHIVAKUMAR, S/O BHUGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.91, SARDAR VALLABHABAYI PATEL NAGARA, POLICE LAYOUT, MYSURU – 570 028.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BAGALAGUNTE P.S., REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING PREMISES, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

SIDDAYYA K., S/O LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.657, 7^TH "E" MAIN CROSS,

¶15

¶16

HEBBAL I STAGE, METIGALLI POST, MYSURU – 570 016.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.495/2018 OF RESPONDENT BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 304(B) READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.4199/2019.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Charge sheet is filed alleging that marriage of the victim was to be solemnized on 21.05.2017 but however, said marriage was not solemnized since the parents of the victim did not pay dowry demanded by the petitioneraccused No.1. Thereafter, the accused visited the parental house of the victim after 1.5 months stating that they are not demanding any dowry and acting upon their words, the marriage of the victim was solemnized with accused No.1 and one gold chain, a gold ring and a watch was given to

¶23

¶24

accused No.1 at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that after her marriage, the victim resided with accused No.1 at the matrimonial home at Bengaluru and initially the accused No.1 looked after the victim affectionately for a period of three months and thereafter he started demanding for a site and to bring one car from parental home and he used to subject her to cruelty both mentally and physically. It is further alleged that accused No.2 and 3 who are the parents-in-law of the victim, who are staying in Mysuru used to frequently visit the matrimonial home and subjected her to cruelty and demanded to bring dowry. It is alleged that on 10.12.2018 at about 7:20a.m. the victim committed suicide by hanging.

¶25

The learned Magistrate accepted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶28

submits that the allegations made against petitionersaccused Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents-in-law of the victim does not satisfy the essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. He further submits that the charge sheet is filed only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations and in the absence of any corroborative material, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 is without substance.

¶29

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the victim committed suicide unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 as well as accused No.1. Hence, the police after investigation have rightly filed charge sheet and the same does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by

¶32

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

To constitute the commission of offence

¶34

punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, the main ingredient of the offence to be established is that soon before the death, the deceased was to be subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner-accused Nos.2 and 3 that they were residing in Mysuru and they used to come to the matrimonial home at Bengaluru and subjected the victim with cruelty and demanded dowry. Even accepting the allegations made in the charge sheet, on the face of it cannot be said that soon before the death of the victim she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 who were residing in Mysuru. In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, the charge sheet filed against petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 is without any substance.

¶35

¶36

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners–accused will be an abuse of process of law and the same requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶39

ii. The impugned proceedings in

¶40

C.C.No.4199/2019 pending on the file of XLV Addl. CMM, Court, Bengaluru insofar as it relates to petitionersaccused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

RKA

Smt Gowramma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma 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

Sri. N Velu Vs J Hemanth Krishna

Prajwal P Shenava Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Yousuff Shariff @ D Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Bachegowda H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Amit Rathore Vs Ms. Kiranashree Electricals