Allowed

Venkata Reddy v. G Chandrashekar Reddy

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2022CRL.P/7276/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against in-laws accused of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide. The High Court held that charge sheets based only on general omnibus allegations without specific proximate acts or mental criminality do not warrant proceeding, quashing the case against the in-laws.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2340/2018 insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are quashed.

Venkata Reddy Vs G Chandrashekar Reddy — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7276/2017 A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7012/2017

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7276/2017:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VENKATA REDDY S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.29-397, INDIRA NAGARA, TANAKAL, ANANTHAPURA, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 571.

¶10

SMT. LAXMI DEVI W/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.29-397, INDIRA NAGARA, TANAKAL, ANANTHAPURA, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 571.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

G. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O G. LAKSHMANA REDDY,

¶15

¶16

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.10-193-3, VIRUPAKSHESHWARA NAGARA, GUTTI ROAD, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF MADIWALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY-560 027,

¶18

REPT. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-2; V/O DATED 13.6.2022, PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.277/2017 OF MADIWALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) 306 AND 114 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶22

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7012/2017:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SMT. GEETHA @ GEETHA RANI W/O. MACHI REDDY SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HEAD NURSE

¶25

¶26

GENERAL HOSPITAL KADIRI, R/AT NO.1-1135-6-4A, ADAPALA STREET, KADIRI, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 591.

¶27

SMT. SUDHA @ P. SUDHARANI W/O PEDDIREDDY MADAN MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.28-6-372, LIG 654, HOUSING BOARD, COLONY, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001.

¶28

...PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

G. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O G. LAKSHMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.10-193-3, VIRUPAKSHESHWARA NAGARA, GUTTI ROAD, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001.

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF MADIWALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY-560 027,

¶33

REPT. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

¶36

¶37

SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-2)

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.277/2017 OF MADIWALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE NOW IN CC NO.2340/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 306, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶39

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

Since both the petitions arise out of the same

¶42

impugned proceedings, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

¶43

The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet alleging that the daughter of the complainant-witnessC.W.1 was married to accused No.1 and at the time of the marriage, cash and gold jewellery was given as dowry. The accused No.1 is working in a software company in Bengaluru and accused No.1 and his daughter used to quarrel over trivial issues and accused No.1 and daughter of CW1 was also not given proper food. It is further alleged at the instance of accused No.2

¶44

¶45

to 5, accused No.1 used to subject the victim to mental cruelty and if she dies he would contract second marriage.

¶46

Two years prior to lodging of the FIR, unable to bear

¶47

the cruelty meted to her, the victim came back to her parental home and gave birth to the male child. It is further alleged that the victim returned back to her matrimonial home, Bengaluru on 06.06.2017. and on 11.06.2017 unable to bear the cruelty meted to her by accused No.1 at the instance of other accused , she committed suicide.

¶48

The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A 306 and 114 read with 149 of IPC and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, these petitions are filed.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitionersaccused No.2 to 5 were not residing with the victim and the charge sheet is filed only on the basis of omnibus and general allegations made against the petitioners-accused. Hence, he

¶50

¶51

submits in the absence of any corroborative material that the victim was subjected to cruelty at the instance of the petitionersaccused, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitionersaccused is impermissible. He further submits that in the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners-accused is one without substance.

¶52

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that, at the instigation of accused No.2 to 5, accused No.1 subjected the victim to cruelty and unable to bear the cruelty meted out to her, victim committed suicide. Hence, they submits that the commission of the offence alleged against the petitionersaccused and as such the charge sheet filed against the petitioners-accused cannot be faulted with and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶53

¶54

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶55

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶56

Marriage of the accused No.1 with the daughter of complainant-witness was solemnized on 18.06.2014 and after the marriage they led their marital life at Bengaluru. It is undisputed that the petitioners-accused were not residing with the daughter of the complainant-witness at any point of time and two years prior to lodging of the FIR, the victim came back to her parental house and delivered a male child. It is only on 6.6.2017 she returned to her matrimonial home at Bengaluru to continue with her marital life and on 11.06.2017 unable to bear the cruelty meted out to her by accused No.1 she committed suicide. This clearly implies that petitioners-accused did not leave together with the victim at any point of time after the marriage and the only allegations is that accused No.1 at their instance subjected the victim to cruelty.

¶57

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar -Vs- State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, at para 18 has held as follows:

¶58

¶59

“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”

¶60

To constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S S Chheena -vs- Vijaykumar Mahajan and another reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190 at para-25 has held as follows:

¶61

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to

¶62

¶63

commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

¶64

The charge sheet material does not disclose that

¶65

there was a clear mens rea to commit the offence and also due to the direct or indirect act of the petitioner - accused led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position to commit suicide.

¶66

The charge sheet is filed only on the basis of the general and omnibus allegations and in the absence of any corroborative material, the allegations that the petitionersaccused instigated accused No.1 to subject the victim to cruelty, the filing of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance against the petitioners-accused is without any substance.

¶67

In view of the above, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law

¶68

¶69

since the possibility of the conviction of the petitioners-accused is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶70

The Criminal Petitions are allowed.

¶71

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2340/2018 pending on the file of the on the file of the III ACMM, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 is hereby quashed.

¶72

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A No.1/2020 shall stand consigned to the record room.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

HR

Venkata Reddy v. G Chandrashekar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkata Reddy v. G Chandrashekar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The India Cements Ltd. Vs Bescom

C Halappa Vs Gurudev B

Saleem Pasha Hafeez Vs State of Karnataka by

Vishal Amla Vs State of Karnataka

Godrej Agrovet Limited Vs Mr. Niraj Narayan Dutta

Sri Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka