Partly allowed

Sri K v. Adithya Bhat v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023CRL.P/1901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed criminal proceedings under IPC 504, 506 and SC/ST (POA) Act for lack of public view for caste insult and insufficient threat evidence, but ordered continuation of prosecution for IPC 498A and D.P. Act offences.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; proceedings under IPC 504, 506 and SC/ST (POA) Act quashed; prosecution for IPC 498A and D.P. Act continued.

Sri K v Adithya Bhat Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1901 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K.V.ADITHYA BHAT S/O. P.V. KRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/OF NO.814, 2^ND MAIN, NEW TIPPASANDRA HAL, 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560008

¶8

SRI. P.V. KRISHNABHAT S/O. CHITTARI VENKATARAMANA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. ANUGRAHA, ADKATH BIALE, NEAR PALLIPADDU GROUND, KASARGUDU, KERALA-671121

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. BHARATHI BHAT W/O. KRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT. ANUGRAHA ADKATH BIALE, NEAR PALLIPADDU GROUND, KASARAGUDU, KERALA-671121

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001 2. SMT. AKSHATHA R W/O. ADITYA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.68, AISHWARYA LAYOUT, KOPPALUR POST, MYSORE CITY, MYSORE DISTRICT-571102

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A, HIGH COURT

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. C.N.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )

¶20

THIS CRL.P. FILED U/S.482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-71) IN CR.NO.82/2019 (NOW SPL.C.NO.1061/2019) THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s)(w) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARRAYING THEM AS ACCUSED, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them in Spl.C.No.1061/2019 pending trial before LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶25

Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (henceforth be referred to as 'D.P.Act' for short) and also under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Amendment Ordinance, 2014 (henceforth be referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Act').

¶26

The respondent No.2 was given in marriage to the petitioner No.1 on 07.05.2015 at Mysuru. She claimed that at the time of marriage, a swift car, 80 gms., gold chain, a ring and a bracelet weighing about 50 gms., other gifts were given to the petitioner No.1 and the marriage was performed at an expense of Rs.45,00,000/-. She claimed that she belonged to scheduled cast, while the petitioner No.1 belonged to Brahmin caste and that they fell in love with each other and thereafter got married. She claimed that the petitioner No.1 landed a job in Bangalore and her father had paid an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as rent for a house, where they started living. She claimed that for a period of two months, she lead a blissful married life. However, she alleged that the petitioner No.1 was addicted to drugs and alcohol and

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶29

used to come late in the night and used to behave strangely. She alleged that whenever her in-laws used to come to Bengaluru and stayed with them, they used to insult her that she belonged to scheduled caste and used to maintain distance from her. She alleged that all the petitioners used to mentally harass her and even the petitioner No.1 used to claim that he should not have married her and used to abuse her.

¶30

Further she claimed that though she informed these incidents to her parents, she was advised by her parents to adjust with petitioners. She further alleged that when the petitioner No.1 desired to go abroad, he demanded her to get money from her parents. She claimed that her parents had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the petitioner No.1 to go abroad on two occasions. She alleged that the petitioners used to abuse her that she belonged to scheduled caste and that they were not interested to entertain her in the house and that they wanted to bring an other alliance for petitioner No.1. She alleged that petitioner No.1 sent her back to her parents house in Mysuru. The petitioner No.1 had nearly 4 – 5 times visited Mysuru insisting the respondent No.2 to concede for a divorce. Despite her parents, prevailing upon them, petitioner No.1

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶32

refused to accept the respondent No.2. She also alleged that her parents were abused by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who informed her parents that they would not allow petitioner No.1 to live with respondent No.2. She claimed that without any alternative, she lodged a complaint before the Mysuru Rural Police Station, who registered Cr.No.82/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and also for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2014. Since the offence was committed at Bengaluru, the case was transferred to Jeevanbheemanagar police station and as the offences alleged was under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the Assistant Commissioner of Police took up the investigation and thereafter filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶33

The trial court took cognizance and registered special case No.1061/2019 for the aforesaid offences and issued process. Being aggrieved by the prosecution launched

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶35

against the petitioners, this petition is filed praying to quash the proceedings.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a perusal of the entire records of the prosecution does not disclose commission of an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act. He contends that there was no threat or intimidation by any of the petitioners to respondent No.2 which is evident from not only complaint lodged by respondent No.2 but also the statement of witnesses recorded by respondent No.1. He submitted that admittedly respondent No.2 led a blissful family life for a period of two years and therefore, the allegations against the petitioners could at the most be normal wear and tear of family life, which cannot be construed as an offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC. Further, he contended that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were in no way involved in the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, as they were residing at Kasargodu, while the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 were residing at Bengaluru. He also contends that there was no specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 3

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶39

and 4 of D.P. Act. He also contends that there are no allegations constituting an offence under Section 498A of IPC and therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is a clear abuse of process of law and Court and therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that CWs.4 and 5 are the friends of the respondent No.2, who had visited the matrimonial home of respondent No.2 on 08.11.2018 and on that day, the petitioner No.1 had abused the respondent No.2 by taking her caste. He therefore, submits that the offences were committed in full public view and therefore, an offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act is made out. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the complaint as well as further statement of respondent No.2 is replete with instances which point out to the cruelty meted out to the respondent no.2. Therefore, he contended that this Court sifting the statement of witnesses to arrive at a finding that the allegations do not constitute an offence under Section

¶41

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶42

498A of IPC. Insofar as the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are concerned, he submitted that in the further statement recorded by the investigating officer, respondent No.2 specifically stated that the petitioner No.1 had threatened her of physical harm, if she did not agree for a divorce by mutual consent. He therefore, contends that there is material justifying prosecution for the offences under Sections 504, 506 of IPC. As regards, the allegations contained under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, he contends that the statement of CWs.2 and 3 as well as the further statement of respondent No.2 clearly make out an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. He contends that the petitioners were all abusing the respondent No.2 and were treating her cruelly and therefore, an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC against all the accused was made out.

¶43

Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the investigating officer after conducting a thorough investigation has found that the petitioners were involved in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act. He submitted that the investigating officer

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶46

collected enough material to justify the charge sheet and therefore, this Court may not quash the proceedings.

¶47

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶48

A perusal of the information furnished by respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 does contain allegations against the petitioners generally, accusing them of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belonged to Brahmin caste, while the respondent No.2 belonged to scheduled caste and that both of them fell in love and thereafter married.

¶49

Respondent No.2 claimed that she led a blissful

¶50

married life for a period of two years, and thereafter, there were certain differences between the petitioner No.1 and her, owing to certain demands made by petitioner No.1 for dowry.

¶51

Though the respondent No.2 has stated that the petitioners were all insulting her, as she belonged to Scheduled caste, however, these instances were not committed by the

¶52

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶53

petitioners in full public view, as those instances happened within four walls of the house of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2. The penal provisions under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA), Act, 1989 be attracted only when a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is insulted at a place within public view and not otherwise. The mere presence of CWs.4 and 5 at the house of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on 08.11.2018, when respondent No.2 was allegedly abused does not result in an offence committed at a place in public view as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another - (2020) 10 SCC 710 where the Hon'ble Apex Court was held at paragraph No.14 as under:

¶54

14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed

¶55

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶56

outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic)".The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)

¶57

“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the

¶58

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶59

public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”

¶60

(emphasis in original

¶61

In that view of the matter, even if the charge sheet is looked into the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, was not committed, by the petitioners. Likewise, though the charge sheet was filed alleging the commission of offence under Sections 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, there is no material collected in that regard and this Court could not have been invoked when respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are a couple. Therefore, the charge sheet filed for the aforesaid offences and the consequent cognizance taken by the trial court is without any basis and without appreciating the position of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hithesh Verma (Supra) .

¶62

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶63

Insofar as, the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, a mere stray statement made by respondent No.2 in her further statement that the petitioner No.1 threatened her of physical harm, if she did not agree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent, itself was not sufficient to constitute an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. To attract an offence under Section 506 of IPC, there should be a physical act constituting intimidation with an intent to cause physical harm which conspicuously is absent in the present case. Therefore, the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1 accusing the petitioners of an offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act deserves to be set at naught.

¶64

Insofar as the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, the information furnished by the respondent No.2 before respondent No.1, the further statement of respondent No.2 recorded and the statement of CWs.2 and 3, justify the charge sheet for an offence under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners

¶65

14 -

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC:34851 CRL.P No. 1901 of 2020

¶67

deserves to be continued only in respect of an offence under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶68

In view of the above, petition is allowed-in-part. The prosecution of the petitioners in Spl.C.No.1061/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, pending trial before LXX Additional City and Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is quashed. However, prosecution of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 D.P. Act shall continue.

¶69

Now that the proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, is quashed, the case shall be referred back to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶70

The parties shall appear before the concerned Magistrate

¶71

on 30.09.2023.

¶72

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

Sri K v. Adithya Bhat v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K v. Adithya Bhat v State of Karnataka

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

G Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R Nagarani Vs the Principal Secretary

Lotus Three Developments Limited Vs Union of India

Arun a Advani Vs State of Karnataka

V. D. Chandrashekar Vs U. R. Meenakshi

Smt K Savitha Vs the State of Karnataka