Allowed

Smt Muniyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2022CRL.P/611/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed Criminal Petition No. 611 of 2019 under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a FIR registered for offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. It held that the alleged instigation to illicit relationship against petitioners accused Nos. 4 to 12 does not constitute an offence. Accordingly, the FIR insofar as it relates to these petitioners was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No. 12/2018 insofar as it relates to petitioners / accused Nos. 4 to 12 is hereby quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.611 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SMT MUNIYAMMA

¶8

D/O CHIKKENAHALLI EKANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶9

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O TURUVANURU CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 517

¶10

2 . SMT VIJAYAMMA D/O EKANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶11

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O KURUBARA STREET, DODDASIDDAVVANAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 524

¶12

3 . SMT GANGAMMA

¶13

W/O MANJUNATHA B. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶14

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NO 1631/1, HADADI MAIN ROAD, TARALUBALU BADAVANE DAVANAGERE – 577 005

¶15

4 . SMT ASHWINI S

¶16

D/O SRINIVASA S AGED ABAOUT 27 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O TURUVANURU CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 517

¶17

¶18

5 . VENKATESH S S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O TURUVANURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 517

¶19

6 . SMT SOWMYA C W/O SANTHOSHA K.N. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NEAR ADARSHA SCHOOL, HKR CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE – 577 004

¶20

7 . SMT SHRUTHI C W/O MANJUNATHA K.M. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NO 1660, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, HKR CIRCLE, NITTIHALLI, DAVANAGERE – 577 004

¶21

8 . PADMARAJ @ PADMA TURUVANUR S/O SIDDALINGAPPA T AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O 552/2, 1^ST MAIN, BEHIND DURGAMBIKA SCHOOL SHIVAKUMARASWAMY BADAVANE, BAPUJI VIJAYANAGARA DAVANAGERE – 577 005

¶22

9 . MYLARI K., S/O KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O BEHIND ITI COLLEGE, LENIN NAGAR, DAVANAGERE NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE – 577 004

¶23

... PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI G.R.RAVEESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLCIE STATION CHITRADURGA – 577 501 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶28

SMT POOJA J.V. W/O AVINASH S C AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MAHATMA GANDHI NAGARA, 2^ND CROSS, IUDP LAYOUT CHTRADURGA – 577 501

¶29

... RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R.D., HCGP FOR R1; SRI A.K.SREEHARSHA FOR SMT.SPOORTHY HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AND ITS CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.12/2018 OF CHITRADURGA WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Respondent No.2 lodged FIR alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and he is having illicit relationship with accused No.2 and accused Nos.4 to 12 are relatives of accused No.2. It is further alleged that these petitioners / accused Nos.4 to 12 have instigated accused

¶35

¶36

No.2 to have illicit relationship with accused No.1. Being aggrieved by the registration of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 497, 114 r/w 149of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this petition is filed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made in the FIR does not disclose commission of offences as alleged against the petitioners. Hence, he submits that the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners requires to be quashed.

¶38

On the other hand, learned HCGP for the respondent – State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would justify the registration of FIR against the petitioners since they instigated accused No.2 to have illicit relationship with accused No.1.

¶39

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

The only allegation against the petitioners is that they have instigated accused No.2 to have illicit relationship

¶41

¶42

with accused No.1. The said allegation does not constitute an offence as alleged against the petitioners. In the absence of any allegation so as to constitute an offence as alleged against the petitioners, the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Criminal petition is allowed .

¶45

(ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.12/2018 registered by the Chitradurga Women Police Station, Chitradurga, pending on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga, insofar as it relates to petitioners / accused Nos.4 to 12 is hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Smt Muniyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Muniyamma 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

Saifuddin Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Honnashettappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B M Nagarajappa Vs State of Karnataka

Arjuman Bhanu K Vs State of Karnataka

Siddaramu B R Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. M. Krishnappa Vs Sri. B C Hanumantharayappa