Allowed

Chakradhar S/O Ganesh Alias T Ganesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023CRL.P/101065/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a matrimonial dispute under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act sections, holding that a delayed FIR filed as revenge constituted an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.438/2021 pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, are quashed.

Chakradhar S/O Ganesh Alias T Ganesh Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14651 CRL.P No. 101065 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101065 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHAKRADHAR S/O GANESH @ T. GANESH, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. PLOT NO.789, KRISHNA COLONY, ANDRAL VILLAGE, BALLARI DIST-583101.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BALLARI), R/BY ITS State PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.

¶14

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.12.16 11:12:10 +0530

¶15

SMT. VIJAYA PARAMESHWARI W/O CHAKRADHAR T., AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SIRUGUPPA ROAD, BEHIND SREERAMULU HOUSE, RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT MATAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN FIR NO.112/2020 (BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION), THE CHARGE SHEET AND ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI IN C.C.NO.438/2021 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14651 CRL.P No. 101065 of 2023

¶20

498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3, 4 OF D.P.ACT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERE TO IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR, chargesheet, order of taking cognizance, issue of process and the proceedings in CC No.438/2021 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, so far as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. None appears for respondent No.2.

¶25

Respondent No.2 filed first information and on

¶26

that basis, a case came to be registered by Mahila Police Station, Ballari, in Crime No.112/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14651 CRL.P No. 101065 of 2023

¶28

the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DP Act’, for short) against the petitioner(accused No.1) and accused Nos.2 and 3 (father-in-law and brother-in-law). The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and two others for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. On the basis of the said charge sheet, a case came to be registered in CC No.438/2021 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari. The petitioner/accused No.1 sought quashing of the proceedings of the said criminal case.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, the petitioner got issued a notice dated 23.05.2020 to respondent No.2 seeking dissolution of marriage by consent and thereafter the petitioner has filed a petition seeking divorce in MC No.76/2020 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari. He further contends that respondent No.2 did not respond to the said notice got issued by the petitioner and after filing of MC case and after she having received the notice from the Court

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14651 CRL.P No. 101065 of 2023

¶31

in the said MC case, has filed a false complaint against the petitioner, her father-in-law and brother-in-law on 16.08.2020. The allegations made against the petitioner, his father and brother are of the instance taken place two years prior to the date of the complaint. Respondent No.2 kept quite all along for two years and only after she receiving notice in the MC case, lodged a complaint. He contends that

¶32

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Petition No.101663/2021. He submits that the petitioner is also placed on the same footing as that of the petitioners in the aforesaid petition. He also places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors.¹ ; Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh² ; the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101467/2022³ and Criminal Petition No.101147/2022⁴ . With this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶33

1 (2022)1 SCR 558

¶34

2 2023 INSC 779 and the order passed

¶35

3 Disposed on 29.11.2023

¶36

4 Disposed on 31.10.2023

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14651 CRL.P No. 101065 of 2023

¶38

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the charge-sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2 and there are serious allegations against the petitioner. There are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge-sheet records, documents and the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

The marriage of respondent No.2 and the petitioner has taken place on 09.12.2016. Respondent No.2 was in employment with Canara Bank, Gadag. Respondent No.2, as per the averments of the complaint, underwent surgery of her right leg on 30.06.2017 and thereafter she resigned the job on 08.01.2018. As per the averments of the complaint, on 14.02.2018, she went to her parents’ house and thereafter she gave birth to a male child on

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14651 CRL.P No. 101065 of 2023

¶42

17.05.2018. It is alleged in the complaint that on 14.02.2018, the parents of the petitioner have harassed and ill-treated respondent No.2 and sent her to her parents house. The allegations against the petitioner as per the averments of the complaint are, that on 23.06.2018 when the petitioner went to see the new born baby, he and his father have abused her and at that time, the petitioner/husband has assaulted her with hands. Respondent No.2 did not lodge any complaint against the petitioner. Thereafter, after a period of more than two years, respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 16.08.2022 only after she has been served with a notice in MC No.76/2020 filed by the petitioner against her seeking dissolution of marriage. The allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are of the dates which had taken place two years prior to filing of the complaint. The said aspect clearly show that only to take revenge for having filed MC case, respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while quashing the proceedings against accused

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14651 CRL.P No. 101065 of 2023

¶45

Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Petition NO.101663/2021 has made

¶46

the following observations:

¶47

“Perusal of the FIR indicates that the de facto complainant was residing in her parental home since 2014 to 2018 and on 20.05.2018 she gave birth to a male child and on 23.06.2018, the petitioner – accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the matrimonial home and abused her in filthy language and also assaulted. However, the FIR was lodged after two years from the date of the alleged incident without offering any plausible explanation which clearly implies that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner – accused herein with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent. The FIR was also lodged after the accused No.1 filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with the de facto complainant which again implies that the dispute between the parties arises out of marital discord, however, given a criminal texture. In view of the same, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner – accused herein will be an abuse of process of law.”

¶48

Considering the above aspects, filing of the complaint by respondent No.2 is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner requires to be quashed.

¶49