Partly allowed

Sri. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2023CRL.P/4871/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that prosecuting accused Nos. 2 to 4 on general allegations was an abuse of law, while proceedings against the first accused would continue.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.9727/2022 against petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 4 are quashed.

Sri. Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4871 OF 2022

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 10072 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4871 OF 2022:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. RAMESH KUMAR S/O B M KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶12

SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA @ M M LAKSHMI W/O RAMESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BOTH ARE PERMANENT R/AT NO.23/186, SRI VENKATESHWARA KRUPA, IST CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, KATTIGENAHALLI, AFS YELAHANKA POST, BANGALORE-560 063.

¶15

ADDRESS STATED IN FIR NO.8, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI DRUSTI ENCLAVE, RING ROAD, BANDIPALYA SIGNAL, GAJJAGALLI, MYSORE-5700 088.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE, BANGALORE-560 063. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HCK BANGALORE-01).

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶21

¶22

SMT SHAMALASHREE W/O MOHAN KUMAR, D/O K VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI DRUSTI ENCLAVE, RING ROAD, BANDIPALYA SIGNAL, GAJJAGALLI, MYSORE-570 008. NOW R/AT NO.115, 1ST MAIN, NEW METRO LAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.9727/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXXVII ACMM BANGALORE AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 287/2021 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 354, 326, 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, 1961.I.A.NO.1/2022 FOR STAY.

¶26

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10072 OF 2022:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

DIVYASHREE @ G DIVYASHREE KAMATH D/O G DEVDAS KAMATH AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT 1-102 VAIDYANATHA NAGAR, PANCHANADY NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE BONDAL, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA-575 008.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. N TEJAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAY BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-560 001.

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶34

SHAMALASHREE W/O MOHAN KUMAR D/O K VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NO 8, 2ND CROSS MAHALAKSHMI DRUSTI ENCLAVE NEAR RING ROADM, BANDEPALYA SIGNAL MYSURU-570 008. CURRENTLY R/AT DOOR NO 115, 1ST MAIN ROAD METRO LAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI MYSURU ROAD, BENGAURU-560 039.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST PETITIONER HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.4 BY THE YELAHANKA POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 326, 504, 506, 342, 354, 114 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 IN CRIME NO.287/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 354, 356, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶41

The summary of the charge sheet is that, the marriage of the accused No.1 with the defacto complainant was solemnized on 16.6.2017 and thereafter the defactocomplainant was staying in the matrimonial home along with

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶44

accused No.1 husband and accused Nos.2 and 3 parents-inlaws within the jurisdictional limits of yelahanka Police station.

¶45

During her stay with the said accused, the accused Nos.1 to 3 used to subject her to cruelty both mentally and physically over trivial issues. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the accused No.1 was transferred to Mysuru and thereafter the defacto-complainant started to reside with the accused No.1 in the martial home at Mysuru. During her stay at Mysuru, father-in-law used to frequently visit the matrimonial home and molestated the defacto-complainant, and accused No.1 is having illicit relationship with accused No.4.

¶46

Though the defacto-complainant brought to the notice of the accused Nos.2 and 3 about the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and 4, they supported the said relationship. On 3.5.2021, accused No.1 to 3 confined the defacto-complainant illegally and did not provide her with food.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the defacto-complainant and accused No.1 were residing separately at Mysuru since 2018 and except omnibus and general allegations there is no specific allegation as to how and in what manner they subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and also demanded to bring money from the parental home.

¶48

He further submits that, the allegation of molestation by accused No.2 is of the year 2018 and the FIR

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶50

was lodged in the year 2021 without offering ay plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR against the accused No.2 for molesting her.

¶51

He further submits that, father of the complainant is retired Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and allegation of molestation has been deliberately made against the accused No.2 with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate him.

¶52

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that allegations made in the FIR and also the charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of the offence alleged against each of the accused, and the veracity of the allegations can be gone into at the time of trial and, at this stage, the same cannot be interfered with and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶53

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶54

Perusal of the charge sheet material discloses, except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation as against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as to how and in what manner they subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and demanded to bring money from the parental home.

¶55

The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar at para No.18 has held as follows:

¶56

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶57

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

¶58

Allegation of molestation against the accused No.2 is of the year 2018, when the defacto-complainant was residing separately along with her husband accused No.1 at Mysuru. The FIR was lodged in the year 2021 alleging that she was molestated by accused No.2-father-in-law, without offering any plausible explanation for delay in lodging the complaint against accused No.2.

¶59

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: “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

¶60

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶61

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.”

¶62

Admittedly, the father of the complainant is the retired Assistant Sub-Inspector which clearly infers that the allegation of molestation is deliberately made with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate accused No.2-father-in-law.

¶63

Allegation against the accused No.4 is that she is having illicit relation-ship with accused No.1, and except the said allegation there is no specific allegation to prosecute her for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and other penal offences alleged against her.

¶64

16. Therefore, the cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences only on the basis of Omnibus and General allegations is without any substance, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 will be an abuse of process of law.

¶65

17. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) petitions are allowed.

¶68

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.9727/2022, pending on the file of XXXVII Additional, Chief Metropolitan

¶69

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:32734 CRL.P No. 4871 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10072 of 2022

¶70

Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to petitionersaccused Nos.2 to 4 is hereby quashed.

¶71

iii) The learned Sessions Judge to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and, the observation made if any, is only for the purpose of the present petitions.

¶72

iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

Sri. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

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

Shobha Devi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayan Mahadevrao Biradar Vs M/S Manthan Creation

Dr R Rajendra Prasad Vs M/S Tbs India Telematic and Biomedical Service Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Ramesh Kumar Vs Smt Shyamala Shree v

Sri.K.N.Shreyas Vs Sri.Deepchand Jain

Sri. Raghuram Reddy Vs State of Karnataka