Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar S/O Yamanappa Ambiger v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023CRL.P/101134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, partially allowed the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR. The Court sustained the registration and investigation against the husband and parents-in-law but quashed it against the sister-in-law due to lack of specific allegations.

What did the court decide?

Registration of crime against Petitioners 1 to 3 sustained; investigation to continue. Registration against Petitioner 4 quashed.

Santosh Kumar S/O Yamanappa Ambiger Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11885 CRL.P No. 101134 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101134 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SANTOSH KUMAR S/O YAMANAPPA AMBIGER, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. SADANKERI, GOURAV PARK, DHARWAD, TALUK. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶8

YAMANAPPA S/O NINGABASAPPA AMBIGER, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. RTD. GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. SADANKERI, GOURAV PARK, DHARWAD, TALUK. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶9

SMT. MALA W/O YAMANAPPA AMBIGER, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. SADANKERI, GOURAV PARK, DHARWAD, TALUK. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶10

AKKAVVA @ SUMA W/O MALLIKARJUN KADAKOL, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO. 52A/7, PLOT NO. 4, SADANKERI, DHARWAD, TALUK. DHARAWAD, DIST. DHARAWAD.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.10.10 11:23:40 +0530

¶13

(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HUBLI DIVISION CITY WOMEN P.S., R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, PIN-580007.

¶16

SMT. DEEPA W/O SANTOSH KUMAR AMBIGER, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. YARAGATTI, TALUK. RAMDURGA, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-590002.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. POOJA SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11885 CRL.P No. 101134 of 2023

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE FIR COMPLAINT AND ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN CRIME NO.4/2023 OF HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY WOMEN PS, FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 504, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961, PENDING OF THE FILE OFI II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT DHARWAD HUBLI, DHARWAD, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.4 of 2023 for offences punishable under sections 498A, 504, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶25

Heard Sri.Shivanand Malashetti, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt.Pooja Savadatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶26

The 1^st petitioner/accused No.1 is the husband, the 2^nd

¶27

respondent/complainant is his wife. The two get married on 03.05.2021. It transpires that on the constant demand of

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11885 CRL.P No. 101134 of 2023

¶29

dowry by the petitioners 2 and 3 father-in-law and mother-inlaw, the wife had to leave the matrimonial house and reside separately. The 2^nd respondent on 02-02-2023, registers a complaint before the jurisdictional police not being able to tolerate the constant harassment by the father-in-law, motheron-law and the husband, 1^st petitioner. Immediately on registration of the crime, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition. This Court in terms of its order dated 18.05.2023 had stayed further investigation against the petitioners 2, 3 and 4.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent/complainant has now entered appearance and the matter, with the consent of the parties, is taken up for its final disposal.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.Shivanannd Malashetti would submit that the wife stayed in the matrimonial house only 20 days and even in those 20 days the wife had constantly harassed the husband and his parents and she on her own left the matrimonial house and then registered a complaint which has become the impugned crime.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11885 CRL.P No. 101134 of 2023

¶33

He would therefore submit that the parents are without any rhyme or reason dragged into these proceedings in a dispute between the husband and the wife. It is his further contention that the complaint nowhere makes out any ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC inter alia .

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel Smt.Pooja Savadatti appearing for the complainant would vehemently refute the submissions taking this Court through the complaint in particular, to demonstrate that there has been constant harassment by all the three, husband, father in law and mother in law, on persistent demand of dowry. She would contend that the husband has tortured the wife on the directions of his parents who have directed the son to behave in a particular manner on demand of dowry. Insofar as the 4^th petitioner sister-in-law is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that there are a sprinkling few allegations against her.

¶35

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶36

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11885 CRL.P No. 101134 of 2023

¶38

The issue lies in a narrow compass. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Since there is no investigation conducted in the case at hand, what is necessary to be noticed is only the complaint. Complaint is in minute detail as to what has transpired from the date of marriage till the date on which the complainant was forced to leave the matrimonial house. The narration is that the wife had to struggle to save the child born from the wedlock only due to the negligence and attitude of the husband and his parents in not cooperating for the treatment of the child. The narration of the complaint, at this juncture, is not required.

¶39

Since the crime is registered only on 02-02-2023 and the complaint does make out certain ingredients necessary to drive home the offence under Section 498A of the IPC against petitioners 1, 2 and 3, the husband, farther-in-law and motherin-law, interdicting or quashing the registration of the crime at the crime stage against them is a prayer that cannot be entertained at this juncture. Insofar as the 4^th petitioner is concerned, i.e., sister-in-law of the complainant, there is no averment except an omnibus statement in the complaint that

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11885 CRL.P No. 101134 of 2023

¶41

¶42

she was also a part of demand of dowry. Barring this, there is nothing against accused No.4 who admittedly resides separately and has nothing to do with the affairs of the family between the complainant and accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, permitting further proceedings against accused No.4 would

¶43

become abuse of the process of the law, but the same is not as against other petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶44

10. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

¶47

(ii) The registration of crime in Crime No.4 of 2023 against accused Nos.1 to 3 is sustained. The investigation shall continue against accused Nos.1 to 3. Registration of the crime against accused No.4 stands quashed.

¶48

Bkp/ct:bck

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

Santosh Kumar S/O Yamanappa Ambiger v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar S/O Yamanappa Ambiger 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

Priyank Kharge Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.B.K. Hariprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shrishail S/O Rudrappa Nagaral Vs State of Karnataka

Avinash Yallanna Savanur Vs State of Karnataka

B Somashekar S/O Blc Boregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. v. Suresh S/O R Venugopal Vs State of Karnataka