Allowed

Sri Ravi Shankar Jha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2023CRL.P/2969/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against three petitioners (husband’s wife and parents) in a dowry harassment case, allowing only the husband’s trial to continue, due to lack of evidence implicating the in-laws.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No.207/2017 for offences under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.

Sri Ravi Shankar Jha Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2969 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAVI SHANKAR JHA S/O S N JHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶8

SMT. SHEELA JHA W/O RAVI SHANKAR JHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶9

THE PETITIONER NO.2 HAS EXPIRED AND AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE COURT DATED 12.09.2023, THE PETITION IS ABATED AGAINST THE 2^ND PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

PETITIONER NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO. 148, NEAR DURGA MANDRI SENDRA BANSJOR, BANSJORA BAGHMARA-COM KATRAS DHANBAD JHARKAND STATE - 828 101.

¶12

SMT. RASHMI JHA W/O VIVEK KUMAR JHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 18, GURUDWAR ROAD PURNWAS KSHETRA CHAS BOKARO JHARKAND STATE - 827 013.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. R V SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VARTHUR POLICE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶19

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

SMT. ARCHANA JHA W/O ROHIT JHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO-476, SAPTAGIRI NILAYA 5^TH CROSS, PATEL LAYOUT BALAGERE ROAD VARTHUR WHITEFIELD BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI. SHARANADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.207/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 (CR.NO.297/2015 VARTHUR POLICE), WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ACJM, BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners were arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3,

¶27

and 4 in C.C. No.207/2017 which is pending trial before

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶29

the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'D.P Act').

¶30

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner No.2 expired during the pendency of this petition, the impugned criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2 have abated.

¶31

A prosecution of the petitioners was launched by the respondent No.2 who furnished information in writing to the respondent No.1 on 18.12.2015 that her husband was demanding dowry after the marriage and that he used to cause physical and mental harassment. She alleged that her in-laws were instigating her husband to torture her and that they were pushing her husband to demand more money from her parents. Based on such a complaint, the respondent No.1 registered Crime

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶33

No.297/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence, registered C.C No.207/2017 and issued process to the accused. The petitioner Nos.1 and 3 being accused Nos.2 and 4 and petitioner No.2, who was arraigned as accused No.3 in C.C.No.207/2017, filed this petition challenging the prosecution launched against them in the aforesaid case.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the respondent No.2 had made an omnibus statement that the petitioners were forcing the accused No.1 to demand more dowry, the statement of the parents of the respondent No.2 disclosed that it was accused No.1 who was making such a demand. He submitted that a perusal of the statement of respondent No.2 discloses that except a stray statement that the petitioners used to instigate accused No.1 to torture her for no reason and

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶36

that they were compelling accused No.1 to demand money from the parents of respondent No.2, there is no averment to drive home an offence under Section 498A or Section 504 or Section 506 and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P Act. He submits that the prosecution witnesses have only pointed to the involvement of accused No.1 and not to the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4. He, therefore, prays that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 would result in harassment of the petitioners and therefore, the prosecution deserves to be set at naught.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the respondent No.2 in her statement specifically spoke about the role of each of the accused, more particularly, the accused No.4. He submitted that all the accused were involved in demanding dowry from the respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioners are liable to face the trial and establish their innocence.

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶39

Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the investigation is conducted and investigating officer has filed a charge sheet after being satisfied that the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P Act.

¶40

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

¶41

I have perused the charge sheet as well as the statement of witnesses. CW.1 is the respondent No.2 while CW.2 is the father and CW.3 is the mother and CW.4 is the brother of the respondent No.2. CWs.1 to 4 have

¶42

not stated anything about the involvement of the petitioners herein in the alleged offence. Their statement discloses that accused No.1 was demanding dowry from respondent No.2 and her parents. As noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶44

of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], there is a tendency

¶45

to implead all the in-laws as accused in an offence under

¶46

Section 498A of IPC. It is the duty of the Court to sift the material furnished by the prosecution to ascertain whether the allegations made against the in-laws is so grave as to constitute an offence under Section 498A of IPC or under Section 3 or Section 4 of D.P Act. Therefore, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners was not justified and the Trial Court was not equally justified in blindly taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the continuation of the prosecution will only result in nuisance and harassment to the petitioners.

¶47

In that view of the matter, the petition is

¶48

allowed. The impugned prosecution of the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 / accused Nos.2 and 4 in C.C. No.207/2017 which is pending trial before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:33023 CRL.P No. 2969 of 2017

¶50

¶51

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed. However, the proceedings in C.C. No.207/2017 shall continue against the accused No.1.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SMA

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Ravi Shankar Jha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravi Shankar Jha 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

The Manager LIC of India Vs Office of Insurance Ombudsman

Smt.S.L.Vijayashree Vs Sri.S.Puttaiah

Sri N B Veerabhadraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

T Keshav Prasad Vs M N Doreswamy

Noorulla Hassan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anusuya B L Vs the State of Karnataka