Partly allowed

Gangadevamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023CRL.P/3783/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC praying quashing of proceedings for Section 498A IPC against accused Nos. 2 to 5. Court held that allegations were omnibus and general, relying on Supreme Court precedent, and quashed proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 5.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.1579/2018 against accused Nos. 2 to 5 quashed.

Gangadevamma Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 3783 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3783 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGADEVAMMA, W/O THAMMAIAH N., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶9

THAMMAIAH N.M., S/O LATE G.V. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶10

DAYANAD, S/O THAMMAIAH N., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶11

ARJUN T., S/O THAMMAIAH N., AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT #538, 1ST BLOCK, SIR M.V. LAYOUT, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060. BANGALORE CITY.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANDEEP HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 3783 of 2019

¶20

PAPER TOWN POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI-577 302.

¶21

RAMYA T., W/O CHETHAN T., AGED MAJOR, R/A 11TH CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGARA, NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE CITY-78.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2019 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1579/2018 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.59/2017 DATED 10.05.2017 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 323 OF IPC AND 4 OF DP ACT AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶25

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners have been charge sheeted for the

¶28

offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that, the defacto-complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1, and accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, and accused Nos.4 and 5 are

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 3783 of 2019

¶31

brothers-in-laws, and they used to subject her to cruelty both physically and mentally. The cognizance taken for the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused

¶33

submits that except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation, as against each accused herein, as to in what manner, they subjected the defactocomplainant to cruelty. Hence, he submits that in the absence of any corroborative material, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is impermissible.

¶34

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the charge sheet material discloses the commission of the aforesaid offences and the veracity of the allegations made against the accused herein can be considered only after full fledged trial.

¶35

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 3783 of 2019

¶38

Initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The police after investigation recorded the statement of the defacto-complainant/victim, and submitted the charge sheet. Except the statement of the defacto complainant, the police have not recorded statement of any of the eye witnesses.

¶39

Even otherwise, the allegations made against the petitioners/accused herein are omnibus and general allegations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR at paragraph No.18 has held as follows:

¶40

“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

¶41

5 - CRL.P No. 3783 of 2019

¶42

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

¶43

Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings only on the basis of ominibus and general allegations will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶46

ii. The impugned proceedings in

¶47

C.C.No.1579/2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi insofar as accused Nos.2 to 5 is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

RKA

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Gangadevamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadevamma 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

Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Mohan Kumar a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajeshwaran Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Leela Poojarthy Vs Smt Pushpa

Sri Ninge Gowda Vs Sri Badrappa

Raina Kumari Vs the Managing Director