Partly allowed

Basavantappa S/O Andappa Halakeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023CRL.P/100980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition by daughters-in-law seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for dowry harassment against their in-laws, noting prima facie involvement, while allowing a separate petition by in-laws to quash proceedings because the charge sheet contained no allegations against them.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.103537/2022 rejected; Criminal Petition No.100980/2022 allowed; proceedings against petitioners in Crime No.3/2021 quashed.

Basavantappa S/O Andappa Halakeri Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103537 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100980 OF 2022

¶8

IN CRL.P. NO. 103537 OF 2022:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

VIRESH S/O BASAVANTHAPPA HALAKERI, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/O. REVANAKI, TQ. YALABURGA, NOW AT HUDACO COLONY, GADAG, DIST. GADAG-582103.

¶11

MJANJUNATH S/O BASAVANTHAPPA HALAKERI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/O REVANAKI, TQ. YALABURGA, NOW AT HUDACO COLONY, GADAG, DIST GADAG-582103.

¶12

… PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. GIRISH .A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.09.13 12:35:21 +0530

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, THROUGH GADAG WOMEN POLICE STATION,

¶17

GADAG, DIST. GADAG-582103.

¶18

SMT. SOUMYA W/O VEERESH HALAKERI, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. HIREHAL VILLAGE, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582209.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURAMTH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶23

1304/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.I, AT GADAG, INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323,504,506 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 4).

¶24

IN CRL.P. NO. 100980 OF 2022:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

BASAVANTAPPA S/O ANDAPPA HALAKERI, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. MIG II 145 HUDCO COLONY, GADAG.

¶27

SMT. KASTURI W/O BASAVANTAPPA HALAKERI, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MIG II 145 HUDCO COLONY, GADAG.

¶28

… PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS .B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH GADAG WOMEN POLICE STATION, GADAG-580011.

¶32

SMT. SOUMYA VEERESH HALAKERI, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. REVANAKI, TQ. YALABURGA, PRESENTLY IN FRONT OF BASAVESHWAR SCHOOL, HUDCO COLONY, GADAG.

¶33

… RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN GADAG WOMEN POLICE STATION WHICH IS REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.3/2021, ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, GADAG, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506, 498A, 504, 323, 324 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN SO FAR THESE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶39

ORDER

¶40

IN CRL.P. NO.103537/2022

¶41

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.1304/20202 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Girish A. Yadwad appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP and the learned counsel Sri.H.G.Gularaddi appearing for the respondents.

¶43

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶44

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 4, in

¶45

relation, the husband and brother-in-law of the 2^nd respondent – complainant. The complainant and the accused No.1 got married on 11.11.2016. On the relationship between the two turning so, the complaint comes to be registered on 27.09.2021 by the 2^nd respondent alleging instances of torture and assault by accused Nos.1 and 4 including all other members of the

¶46

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶47

family. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.3/2021. The Police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet against all the accused. The matter is now pending in C.C. No.1304/2022. The filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶48

The learned counsel Sri.Girish Yadawad appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there are no allegations that would touch upon the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 or any other offences so alleged. What is alleged is what happens in the couple in a day today life and this cannot become an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The particular reference to accused No.4 submit that he was not even present on the said date in the alleged scene of crime, as he was attending a marriage at Gadag and the incident has taken place at Bengaluru. He would therefore seek quashment of the proceedings qua accused Nos.1 and 4. Above all, the learned counsel would submit that the incident has happened according to the

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶50

complaint on 19.06.2021 and the crime comes to be registered only on 27.09.2021 close to three months after the incident.

¶51

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent at the outset submit that due to the low suffered assault by accused Nos.1 and 4, the complainant did not immediately gather courage to register a complaint and was also advised for bed rest by the Doctor. Therefore, there is delay in lodging the complaint. The delay according to the learned counsel would not become fatal to the conduct of the proceedings. He would further submit that there are clear allegations found in the complaint and in the summary of the charge sheet qua accused Nos.1 and 4 in the list and therefore the petition should be dismissed.

¶52

The learned HCGP would take this Court through the summary of the charge sheet which narrates and would submit that the summary narrates minute details of torture meted out by the accused Nos.1 and 4

¶53

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶54

upon the complainant. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶55

I have given my anxious considerations to the

¶56

arguments addressed on both sides and have perused the material on record.

¶57

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.

¶58

They are now in a narrow compass. The relationship between the petitioners and the complainant is a matter of record. The floundering of relationship between the accused No.1 – husband and the complainant leads the complainant to register a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.3/2021 for the afore-quoted offences. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The summary of charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:

¶59

“�ನ� ��ಲಯದ ��ಯ�� ಬ�ವ ಗದಗ ಶಹರದ �.�.�1 �ದವ� ��ೕಮ !�� "ೕಂ $ೕ%ಶ &ಳ() ಇವಳ+, -�ಂಕ: 11-11-2016 /0 1ಪ�3ಯದ ಪ�4ರ ಗದ5ನ ��ೕ ��ದ ಕ6�ಣ 8ಟಪದ�� :�-;)ಯರ ಸಮ=ಮ 1� ಆ?ೕ�ತ�ದ $ೕ%ಶ ಬಸAತಪB &ಳ() �|| %ವಣD &�ವಸ ಗದಗ

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶62

EFೕ 4GೕH, I¢èAಗ ನಗರ ಇವJಂ-K �gÁå¢ಯ LMNO�ದ �.�.�: 6-7 �ದವ� ಮ0P �Q"RS �N�T. �gÁå¢ಯ ಮ0P HಶU ಯ 4ಲVW ಮX� ಮ0P 4ಲVW ಸ�ಜದ :�-;)ಯZದ [.�.�.�: 8- 9-10-11-12 �ದವರ ಸಮ=ಮ �.�.�:6-7 �ದವ� ವ?ಪ[ರ�5 �gÁå¢ \ಡ 1 � ಆ?ೕ�ತHK 9 ^� _`ರದ�� ಉಂ:ರ, bc, d�efg &h ಒಂjವT ಲ= klOಯ mno ��+, 80,000/klOಯ dಂp ��+ ಮq ಬಳVಯ ಇN�- ವr�ಗಳ+, "sS ಮ0P �Q0t ಮ0P �ತರ �gÁå¢u dvw �ಡx \ಡನ ಮqK yೕ3ಗ \ಡನ ಮqಯ�� r�� 6 ಂಗಳವರK �gÁå¢K ಅವಳ \ಡ ಮX� \ಡನ ಮqಯವ� {�, 5 JೕQ"ಂ| �ತರ -�ಂಕ 27.8.2017 )ಂದ �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡ ಮX� \ಡನ ಮqಯವTಲ�k }Q"ಂ| �gÁå¢K Hನ, LM-NOK Hೕ~ ಇಬ• % €•‚ ಮಕW � ಇ� �ೕ), Hನ, LM-NO ಆI�ಯ�� ಅಧ„ ;…† ‡K0"ಂ| d, ಮ0Pಯ�� ವ?ೕಪ[ರ �ತ� �Q0t ವರಧDˆ ‰ "RS �ವ-ಲ� . ಆI� ತರ�ಲ� ಅಂದT 30 )ಂದ 40 ಲ= klO ವರದDˆ ‰ ಹಣ Š‹ಂಡ d, -ೕlವnಯ�� ಅnಯHK �|ವ 1ಸW ೃ Hಮ• ಪB HK ‹ �ಲ� ಅಂN �gÁå¢K ಅ�ಚ��5 •3|N� , yQಬQ �|N� , ‹pK j|N� , •;ಕ�5, �ನIಕ�5, -�ಪ� D�‘ಳ "ಡ�VW ಹ �3ಗ �gÁå¢u ಈ $ಷಯ ತನ, LM NO�ದ �.�.�:6-7 �ದವ)K nI0t ಆಗ ಅವ� �gÁå¢ಯ ಮ0P HಶU ಯ ಮX� ಮ0P 4ಲVW ಇದt [.�.�.�: 8-9-10-11-12 � :� ;)ಯ)ಂದ �gÁå¢ಯ

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶65

\ಡ ಮX� \ಡನ ಮqಯವ)K {�, 5 JೕQ"ಂ| yೕ5, �gÁå¢ LM- NO ಹ� �ತರ ಸಮ�5 ಇಬ• k €•‚ ಮಕW nK ಒvo ಬ�ತ�M ಅಂN –-t �ದ —nದ� D�‘ಳ "|N� _0 �ತರ �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡ+ mಂಗ˜)ನ ™ಸ5 šಪHಯ�� ಇಂಜHಯ› ಅಂN Vಲಸ �| �0t ದ)ಂದ �3�œK D�‘ಳ "|ವ ಉMt ೕಶ-ಂದ• �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡ, ಅ‡�-�ವ, ž0ನ ಮX� �-H }Q"ಂ| mಂಗ˜)ನ Ÿ.� ನಗರದ�� ಒಂ0 dQK ಮq �Q ಅ��K �gÁå¢K �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡ+ ತನ, 1ಗಡ mಂಗ˜)K ಕT0"ಂ| yೕ50t ಅ��¡ ಸಹ �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡನ ಮqಯವ� yೕ5 0 �|N� �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡJಂ-K �gÁå¢ಯ ž¢�ನ `ರದ ಒಡPಗಳ+, , �gÁå¢ಯ �-HK "ಡx —n3ಗ ಅವ� HZಕ)Iದt )ಂದ ಅವTಲ�k �gÁå¢K ಇ��ಯವTK ಮಕW � ಆಗ�� Hೕ+ Hನ, ತವ� ಮqOಂದ ಆI� ಇಲ�P ವರದDˆ ‰�5 30 )ಂದ 40 ಲ= k ಹಣ ತರ�ಲ�. ಗದಗದ�� Hನ, 1-ಕ)K ಕTI, –-t —ಳI�ೕ� Hನ, +, ¦ೕAತ §|ವ-ಲ�. Hನ, +, ಉnrವ-ಲ� "ಂ0 &‘‡�ೕP ಅಂN ¦ೕವದ mದ)V &‘N� •;ಕ, �ನIಕ D�‘ಳ "| �ದt 1¨ಭ„ದ�� gÁå¢ಯ 1-ಕ �.�.�:13 ಪ�ತ�= š| &Kಲ� �ಡ¬Q {�, 5 JೕQ"ಂ| yೕ5� ಅಂN –-t —nದt ಲ�- -�ಂಕ: 18.7.2021 /0 �gÁå¢ಯ LM-NO &h [.�.�. �: 8-9-10-11-12 � :�-;)ಯ)ಂದ –-² �ದ —nದ� ಅದq, ೕ ³ಂ0ವTrN� _0 ಅ��ಂದ mಂಗ˜)ನ Iಂ´1ದ�ದ ಮ�µ ಅlg„8ಟದ�� I-2 d�ಕದ��ಯ ಮq � 406 �ದt +, dQK ಮq �Q ಅ��¡ ಸಹ �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡ ಮX� \ಡನ ಮqಯವ� yೕ5

¶66

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶68

_0 �|N� ವರದDˆ ‰ ಹಣ ‡K0"ಂ| d ಇಲ�· ಆI�ಯ�� ;�† ‡K0"ಂ| d ಅಂN �3�œK •;ಕ, �ನIಕ ;ಂ… "|N� 0 1 � ಆ?ೕ�ತ�ದ �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡ &h 4 � ಆ?ೕ�ತ�ದ �gÁå¢ಯ ž0ನ }Q"ಂ| -�ಂಕ: 19-06-2021 /0 mnK¸ 10-00 \¹ r�)K �gÁå¢K yQ ಬQ �Q, mº k»ನ��ಯ 4g K zÀÆQ Vಡ$ �gÁå¢ಯ ನಡ ಮX� ¼ಂಟVW ಒಳJೕ~ ಪQIದ $ಷಯ n0 �gÁå¢ಯ 1- �.�.�: 14 &h �gÁå¢ಯ ½ದ� ¾ �ಯ�� ಪ)¿ತ�ದ 6�À ¹D, �ಯc ��.�: 15 }Q"ಂ| �gÁå¢ಯ \ಡ ಮX� ž0ನHK &Kಲ� �ಡ¬Q {�, 5 JೕQ"ಂ| yೕ5 ಅಂN –-t —nದk ಅವರ �ತ+, (ಳ- �gÁå¢K �- )ೕ ಉಪ[ರ �Qಸ- ಸದ) 1 ಮX� 4 � ಆ?ೕ�ತ� }Q"ಂ| ಸದ) dQK ಮqಯ�� gÁå¢u ತನ, C¯ÉäÃgÁದ�� ಇ)Iದ mno _`ರದ ವಡPಗಳ+, "ಡdರ0 ಅ+, ವ ÂÃS Oಂದ ಅಗಳ+, ‡K0"ಳo x �gÁå¢K ಅವ4ಶ �gÁå¢ಯ+, ಗದಗದ��ವ ತಮ• ಮqK ಕT0"ಂ| _0 ಗದಗದ��¡ ಸಹ ಸದ) 1 ಮX� 4 � ಆ?ೕ�ತ� �gÁå¢K ½ದ�Dೕಯ ಉಪ[ರ �Qಸ- ವರದDˆ ‰ ಹಣ ಇಲ�· ತವ�ಮq ಆI�ಯ�� ;…† ‡K0"ಂ| d ಅಂN •;ಕ �ನIಕ D�‘ಳ "sS ¦ೕವದ mದ)V &D ಕÄ: 498 (ಎ), 323, 324, 504, 506 ಐ�I &h 3 ಮX� 4 Q.� ಆPÖÀ ಅQ ಅಪZಧ ಎಸ5�N�T.”

¶69

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶70

The summary of the charge sheet supra clearly

¶71

indicates that on 19.06.2021 at about 10:00 p.m., the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 4 have pushed the complainant on the bed, assaulted her which has resulted in certain injury to the complainant. The background to the said assault by both the accused Nos.1 and 4 is for demand of dowry which had been short paid at the time of marriage and there has been consistent demand for such dowry to be bought by the husband. In the teeth of the aforesaid summary of the charge sheet, what is necessary to be noticed are the offences alleged. The offences are the ones punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

¶72

A perusal of the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and sections 323 and 324 of the IPC against the accused No.4 which has a backdrop of demand of dowry. Therefore, the offences under Section 498A of the IPC inter alia are sustained against the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 4.

¶73

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶74

There is no ground that would warrant interference at this stage of the proceedings qua the said accused. The charge sheet prima facie indicates that the petitioners are involved in the alleged crime qua the offences.

¶75

Therefore, finding no merit, the petition stands

¶76

rejected.

¶77

IN CRL.P. NO.100980/2022

¶78

The facts that lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition are akin to what is narrated in Criminal Petition No.103537/2022 which is dismissed.

¶79

The incident that triggered the registration of the crime is narrated in the order passed in the said petition. What is required to be noticed in the case at hand for consideration of the case of the petitioner is the summary of the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 is also extracted in the said petition.

¶80

A perusal at the facts and the summary of the charge sheet would indicate no offences against the

¶81

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10166 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100980 of 2022

¶82

petitioners in the subject criminal petition. Therefore, finding no offences that would become ingredients of neither Sections 498A, 323, 324 of the IPC permitting further proceedings against the mother-in-law and fatherin-law of the 2^nd respondent - complainant would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶83

For the aforesaid all reasons, the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) Criminal Petition No.103537/2022 is rejected.

¶86

(ii) Criminal Petition No.100980/2022 is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.3/2021 of Gadag Women Police Station, on the file the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Gadag qua the petitioners stands quashed.

¶87

rsh/ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

Basavantappa S/O Andappa Halakeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavantappa S/O Andappa Halakeri 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

Sri. Sheik Sirajuddin @ Siraj Sheik Vs State of Karnataka

Sriramamurthy S/O M Ramayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Amol S/O Vidyadhar Mohandas Vs the State of Karnataka

N. Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Yankappa Baraker Vs Arati W/O Santosh Baraker

Shantaraj Parashuram Pol Vs the State of Karnataka