Quashed

T N Roopa Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023CRL.P/246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and related charges under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act in matrimonial dispute. The court found the dispute arose from marital discord, noted significant delay in lodging the FIR, and held continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The FIR dated 31.07.2021 and proceedings in C.C.No.1532/2022 were quashed.

T N Roopa Devi Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 246 OF 2022 C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 404 OF 2022

¶9

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 246 OF 2022:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

T N ROOPA DEVI W/O AVINASH KADAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶12

AVINASH KADAM S/O KARUNAKAR KADAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BOTH NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.26/1, S.S. TEMPLE STREET NEAR SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE V.V. PURAM, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004.

¶15

T N RASHMI W/O YOGESH S AGED 36 YEARS

¶16

YOGESH S

¶17

S/O G SUBRAMANI AGED 43 YEARS BOTH 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.22/A, 2ND MAIN 2ND STAGE, AECS LAYOUT SANJAYNAGAR POST

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶20

RMV EXTENSION II STAGE BENGALURU-560 094.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN'S POLICE STATION REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.

¶25

SWATHI PAWAR W/O BALACHANDAR T N D/O SURESH PAWAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9, PRASHEELNILAYA 14TH A MAIN ROAD, 8TH E CROSS ATTIGUPPE BENGALURU-560 040.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. JAMUNA BAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 31.07.2021 IN CR.NO.120/2021 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, AND COMPLAINT DATED 29.07.2021 AND PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 37th ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF D.P ACT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶29

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.404 OF 2022:

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

BALACHANDAR T N S/O T.N. NEELAKANTAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶32

3 - CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶33

MANJULA BAI, W/O T.N. NEELAKANTAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶34

BOTH 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT R/AT FLAT NO.G-1, 2ND CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT ROAD THALAGHATTAPURA, KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE-560 109..

¶35

…PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN'S POLICE STATION REP. BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶39

SWATHI PAWAR W/O BALACHANDAR T N D/O SURESH PAWAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9, PRASHEEL NILAYA 14TH A MAIN ROAD, 8TH 'E' CROSS ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. JAMUNA BAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶42

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 31.07.2021 IN CR.NO.120/2021 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, AND COMPLAINT DATED 29.07.2021, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE 37TH A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC R/W SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶43

4 - CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Since the petitioners in these petitions are challenging the very same proceedings, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by a common order.

¶47

The petitioners are charge sheeted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging that, the marriage of the defacto complainant was solemnized with the accused No.1 on 15.5.2019. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant, as per the demands of the accused, have given dowry to the accused in the form of gold and cash.

¶48

It was further alleged that the petitioners-accused subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically, and on 7.5.2020, the defacto complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home, stating that she should not come back to the matrimonial home till she brings a sum of Rs.20 lakh from the parental home, and the petitionersaccused refused to take back the defacto complainant to the matrimonial home, stating that she will be allowed to enter the

¶49

5 - CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶50

matrimonial home, only when she brings Rs.20 lakh from the parental home. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the aforesaid offence is impugned in these petitions.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, on 14.2.2021, the accused lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police, stating that there was a misunderstanding between the accused No.1 and his wife, and without any reason, the defacto complainant is threatening that, she would commit suicide, and accordingly the accused No.1 left the defacto complainant in the parental home, and requested the police to call the defacto complainant and advise her suitably. She further submits that the FIR was lodged as an after thought, only after the accused No.1 sent a notice dated 28.6.2021 calling upon the defacto complainant to give consent for dissolving their marriage mutually. Hence, she submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of marital discord, however, given a criminal texture. She further submits that except omnibus and general allegations, there are no specific allegations as against each of the petitioners - accused, as to how, and in what manner, the accused

¶52

6 - CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶53

subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty and also the demand to bring money from the parental home.

¶54

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that there are specific allegations as against each of the accused, as to how, and in what manner, the accused subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty, and also the demand was made to bring money from the parental home. The charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offence, and the veracity of the allegation can be considered only after full fledged trial. Hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶55

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

¶56

It is undisputed that the defacto complainant in the FIR, alleged that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 7.5.2020, and on 14.2.2021, she along with her parents, brother and sister came to the matrimonial home and requested the petitioners - accused to take her back to the

¶57

7 - CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶58

matrimonial home. In the meanwhile, the accused No.1 had filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police station that the defacto complainant has threatened that she would commit suicide, and requested the police to call the defacto complainant and advise her suitably. Thereafter, the notice was issued on 28.6.2021 by the accused No.1 calling upon the defacto complainant to give consent for dissolving the marriage mutually. The said notice was refused by the defacto complainant, which is evident from the acknowledgement produced along with the petition at Annexure-E. The defacto complainant without offering any explanation for the delay of nearly more than one year lodged the FIR. The Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 has held as follows:

¶59

“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.”

¶60

8 - CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶61

A perusal of the FIR, and the complaint lodged by the accused No.1 against the defacto complainant, and also the notice issued calling upon the defacto complainant to give consent for dissolving the marriage mutually, clearly implies that the dispute between the parties arises out of the marital discord, however, given a criminal texture. In my view, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) Criminal petitions stand disposed of.

¶64

ii) The impugned FIR dated 31.7.2021 in Crime No.120/2021 registered by the Basavanagudi Women's Police Station in Crl.P No.246/2022 is hereby quashed.

¶65

iii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1532/2022 pending on the file of the 37th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crl.P No.404/2022 is hereby quashed.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

¶68

BKM

¶69

¶70

CRL.P No. 246 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 404 of 2022

¶71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶72

[T N ROOPA DEVI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER]

¶73

HCJ

¶74

28.03.2023 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶75

ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2023

¶76

I.A. No.1/2023 is filed seeking modification of the order dated 14.02.2023.

¶77

It is submitted that by oversight there is no specific order of quashing the charge sheet dated 29.11.2021 in C.C.No.1532/2022 in Crl.P.No.246/2022 and order of quashing FIR dated 31.07.2021 in Cr.No.120/2020 in Crl.P.No.404/2022. I.A.No.1/2023 is disposed of with the following modification in the operative portion of the order: "The impugned FIR dated 31.07.2021 in Cr.No.120/2021 registered by the Basavangudi Women's Police Station in Crl.P.No.246/2022 and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1532/2022 pending on the file of 37^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl.P.No.404/2022 are hereby quashed."

¶78

This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 14.02.2023.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

RKA

T N Roopa Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T N Roopa Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu @ Renu Kumar S Vs the State by Mahadevapura Police Station

Mr. Vivek N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Hanumegowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. S. Rajeshwari Vs the State by

Srinivasan K Vs the State of Karnataka