Partly allowed

Smt. Anusuya B L v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2023CRL.P/4075/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the prosecution of the petitioner mother under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act for lack of specific overt acts alleging her involvement. The petition challenging the accused sister-in-law was dismissed, leaving her to seek discharge in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution against petitioner No.1 quashed; petition against petitioner No.2 dismissed with liberty to seek discharge.

Smt. Anusuya B L Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32891 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2019

¶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.4075 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ANUSUYA B L W/O. LATE LAKSHMIYANARAYANA B.S. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.330, 1^ST A CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560040

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SMT. PADMASHREE B L W/O. MAYUR B N, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/O D.NO.04, BIDADI MAIN ROAD, BIDADI, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT-562109

¶10

(BY SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA B N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶14

SOMYA SHARMA B3-154, 1^ST FLOOR, KENDRIYA VIHAR APARTMENTS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32891 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2019

¶16

NEW AIRPORT ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶18

MS. URMIL PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 OF D.P ACT ALONG WITH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.23634/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 44^th ACMM, COURT, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.124/2017 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C.No.23634/2017 pending trial before 44^th ACCM Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (henceforth referred to as 'D.P. Act for short).

¶23

The respondent No.2 submitted an information before the respondent No.1 on 24.04.2017, stating therein that she was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 01.02.2017 and

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32891 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2019

¶25

that due to various matrimonial issues, the accused No.1 and the other accused used to physically and mentally harass her. She claimed that all the accused were demanding dowry and since she refused to get money from her parents, she was disowned by the accused No.1. She alleged that petitioner No.2/accused No.3 being her sister-in-law had played a major role in demanding dowry from her and her parents. Based on this information, the respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.124/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶26

Respondent No.1 after investigating the offences filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The trial court took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the accused. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed this petition challenging the prosecution launched against them.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 submitted that accused No.2 is terminally ill and is suffering from cancer. He submitted that a reading of entire complaint lodged by respondent No.2 with the respondent No.1

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:32891 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2019

¶30

and the statement of the witnesses, does not disclose involvement of petitioner No.1. He further submitted that except an omnibus allegation made against the petitioner No.1 that she was involved in demanding dowry from respondent No.2 and her parents, there is no specific details as to when and how the demand was made. He further submitted that the petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is residing at Bidadi, while the respondent No.2 and accused No.1 are residing separately at Bengaluru and therefore, there is no question of the petitioner No.2 being involved in the matrimonial affairs of the respondent No.2. He therefore, submitted that prosecution initiated against petitioner No.2 is a deliberate act to harass her.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there are overt-acts attributed to the petitioners in the information furnished by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1. She contends that the investigating officer has recorded the statement of parents of respondent No.2 and her sister and her brother-in-law as well as one Nagaraj/CW.2, who was an acquaintance of the family of the respondent No.2. She submits that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the petitioner

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:32891 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2019

¶33

No.2 was involved in demanding dowry from respondent No.2 and her parents, therefore, this Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶34

I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have also perused the charge sheet and the documents enclosed with the charge sheet.

¶35

Though the respondent No.2 had lodged a detailed information about the alleged incidents, a perusal of the entire complaint does not indicate any serious overt-acts by the petitioner No.1. Even the statement of the witnesses recorded does not indicate any criminal intent or act by petitioner No.1/accused No.2. The petitioner No.1 being the mother of the accused No.1 is shown to be 63 years old in the year 2017 and stated to be residing at Vijayanagar along with accused No.1. Since there is no specific incident accusing the petitioner No.1 of any criminal act in demanding dowry or in causing physical or mental harassment to the respondent No.2, the prosecution

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32891 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2019

¶37

of the petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is wholly unwarranted and deserves to be halted.

¶38

Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the

¶39

statement of CWs.6 and 7 is relevant as they are the brotherin-law and sister of respondent No.2. They have in one voice stated that petitioner No.2 was involved in demanding dowry from respondent No.2 and her parents. This apart, marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 01.02.2017 and accused No.1 had filed M.C.No.460/2018 for annulment of the marriage which discloses that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were residing separately from one month from the date of marriage. The reasons for such separation is alleged to be demand of dowry by accused No.1 while the accused No.1 claims otherwise.

¶40

In that view of the matter, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is concerned. However, she is entitled to seek for discharge in accordance with law.

¶41

In view of the above, this petition is allowed-in-part. The prosecution of petitioner No.1/accused No.2 in

¶42

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:32891 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2019

¶43

C.C.No.23634/2017 pending trial before 44^th ACMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act is quashed.

¶44

The petition filed by petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is dismissed. However, she is at liberty to seek discharge before the Trial Court in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt. Anusuya B L v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anusuya B L 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

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

Sri Ravi Shankar Jha Vs State of Karnataka

Noorulla Hassan Vs State of Karnataka