Allowed

Madappa P v. Vijayanagara Police Station

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2022WP/9587/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR registered against petitioner-accused Nos. 5 and 6 under Section 498A IPC as they are not relatives of husband/complainant and no specific allegations of cruelty or physical injury against them existed in FIR or Section 161 statement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Impugned FIR in Crime No.450/2016 quashed insofar as petitioners (accused Nos. 5 and 6) are concerned.

Madappa P Vs Vijayanagara Police Station — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.9587/2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MADAPPA P S/O LATE PUTTAPPA S AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶8

SMT. SARVAMANGALA @ SMT. SARVAMANGALA GOWRI G W/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.54/8 1ST 'B' CROSS, MARENAHALLI NEAR VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI RANGARAMU V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560 040 REP. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER.

¶14

SMT. THEERTHA LOKESH W/O DR. LOKESH B.H. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.62, PUNARVASU 2ND CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT

¶15

¶16

VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED 7.9.2016 IN CRIME NO.450/2016, OF VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION, ON THE FILE OF 24TH ACMM AT BANGALORE, ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 34, 307 and 498A of IPC alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically by the accused and also there was a demand to bring money from the parental home. It is further alleged that, on 5.9.2016 due to her ill-health, when she was residing in the parental home, the accused forcibly entered her parental home and abused her in filthy language and also assaulted the 2nd respondent, due to which, she sustained injuries. The police registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences.

¶23

¶24

Taking exception to the same, the accused Nos.5 and 6 are before this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioners - accused Nos.5 and 6, the registration of FIR against the petitioners - accused Nos.5 and 6 is impermissible.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the allegations made in the FIR and also in the further statement disclose that the petitioners - accused Nos.5 and 6 assaulted the 2nd respondent and at this stage, the registration of FIR cannot be interfered with.

¶27

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

A perusal of FIR and also further statement of the 2nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC disclose that there is no specific allegation that the petitioners - accused Nos.5 and 6 assaulted the 2nd respondent and also any attempt

¶29

¶30

was made to kill the 2nd respondent by pouring kerosene except the allegation that they forcibly entered the parental home.

¶31

It is undisputed that accused Nos.5 and 6 are not relatives of the husband of the complainant. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, a woman should have been subjected to cruelty by her husband or by a relative of the husband. Hence, in the absence of any specific allegation so as to constitute the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners - accused Nos.5 and 6, the registration of FIR against the petitioners - accused No.5 and 6 is without any substance. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.450/2016 pending on

¶35

the file of the 24th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru City, insofar as the petitioners - accused Nos.5 and 6 is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

bkm

Madappa P v. Vijayanagara Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madappa P v. Vijayanagara Police Station

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 Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab Vs District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner

Shivu @ Shiiv Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vishalakshamma Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station

Mr Abhay Singh @ Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Astamija Dash Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Vittal Yallappa Byakod Vs the State of