Partly allowed

Sri. Venkataiah R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023CRL.P/3583/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the second accused (mother-in-law) in a matrimonial dispute involving cruelty and dowry demand. The court observed that specific allegations against her were missing and there was no corroborative material, deeming further trial an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings instituted against petitioner accused No.3 in CC No.4194/2016 were quashed as they constitute abuse of process of law.

Sri. Venkataiah R Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3583 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3583 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. VENKATAIAH R S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS (PETITION AGAINST P1 ABATED V/O DATED 12/11/2020)

¶11

HEMAVATHI W/O VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.31A/1 5TH MAIN, MLA LAYOUT R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR P-2; V/O DATED 12.11.2020 PETITION STANDS ABATE IN R/O P1)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULSOOR GATE LADIES POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 008.

¶17

G.R. LAKSHMI W/O DR. MANOJ KUMAR AGED BOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.C-12-A 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS PWD QUARTERS, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 046.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R-1/STATE;

¶20

¶21

CRL.P No. 3583 of 2017

¶22

SMT. CHAMPOO KAVYA S., ADVOCATE FOR DR. M. SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PENDING BEFORE THE VI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.4194/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 498A, 120 (B) r/w section 34 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that, the defacto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1, and their marriage was solemnized on 18.08.2006, and accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-laws, and they subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically and also there was a demand to bring money for the parental home. The Cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶27

Petition as against petitioner No.1-father-in-law is dismissed as abated upon his death.

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 3583 of 2017

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶31

Perusal of the private complaint filed by the defacto complainant and also the charge sheet material discloses that there is no specific allegation as against the accused No.3, as to how, and in what manner, she was subjected to cruelty by the said accused and also there was demand to bring money from the parental home.

¶32

The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @

¶33

Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar¹ at para No.18 has held as follows:

¶34

“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 3583 of 2017

¶37

laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”

¶38

Except omnibus and general allegation there is no corroborative material produced along with the charge sheet to substantiate the allegation that accused No.3 subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically and also demanded to bring money from the parental home.

¶39

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 will be an abuse of process of law, since the probability of conviction of the petitioner-accused No.3 herein is remote and bleak in the absence of any corroborative material as against the petitioneraccused No.3. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.4194/2016 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in so far it relates to petitioner-accused no.3 is hereby quashed.

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 3583 of 2017

¶45

iii) The learned Magistrate shall proceed against the accused No.1 without being influenced by this order on the basis of the available material on record.

¶46