Allowed

Sri Sathish Kumar M v. the Police Inspector

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023CRL.P/5393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition by a husband sought quashing of FIR and trial proceedings under Section 498A IPC for alleged dowry harassment. The High Court held that the charge sheet lacked evidence for suicide or injury, allowing it to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings pending in C.C.No.12399/2018 registered in Crime No.52/2017 are hereby quashed.

Sri Sathish Kumar M Vs the Police Inspector — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5393 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.SATHISH KUMAR M S/O A S MUNIRAM SHETTY R/AT NO.15, 13TH CROSS BENDRE NAGAR BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560070

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P.V.GOUTHAM BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE POLICE INSPECTOR BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT SANTHOSHI S @ VIDYA W/O SATISH KUMAR R/A NO.1214, 28^TH MAIN JAYANAGAR 9^TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560069

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.VINAYAK V.S, HCGP FOR R.1 SRI.ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.52/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL C.M.M., BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE ANNEXURE -A, B AND C IN C.C.NO.12399/2018 AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.08.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The captioned criminal petition is filed by the petitionerhusband seeking quashing of the FIR, complaint and charge sheet in Crime No.52/2017 as well as proceedings pending in C.C.No.12399/2018.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is as under;

¶21

Respondent No.2 - complainant has lodged a complaint

¶22

alleging that the marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 27.02.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs and there was a demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 200 grams gold. The

¶23

¶24

same was given by the parents of respondent No.2 - Complainant at the time of marriage. Respondent No.2 - complainant has alleged in the complaint that she was often being tortured and there was a dowry demand by the in-laws of the petitioner. She has also alleged that during her first pregnancy, the petitioner and his parents have not taken care of respondent No.2 - complainant and when respondent No.2 was blessed with a baby girl, the petitioner and his family members further insisted and demanded to bring further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and 40 grams gold. She has further alleged that the petitioner was insisting respondent No.2 - complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Bank and an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs under Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana Account. Respondent No.2 - complainant has further alleged that the petitioner under the garb of construction of a residential house is demanding Rs.25,00,000/- and he was often torturing respondent No.2 - complainant to bring the same. During her second pregnancy, it is alleged that

¶25

¶26

petitioner and his parents were harassing and torturing respondent No.2 and on account of harassment, respondent No.2 - Complainant suffered miscarriage. It is also alleged that the parents of the petitioner i.e., in-laws of respondent No.2 - Complainant are intending to get the petitioner married once again. On these set of allegations, the complaint is lodged. Based on which, the Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and after investigation, charge sheet is laid. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summons is issued to the petitioner herein.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that respondent No.2 used to quarrel on trivial issues and she was demanding to have a separate residence and also expressed that she cannot live with inlaws. Referring to the charge sheet materials, he would vehemently argue and contend that materials on record do not prima-facie demonstrate that there are sufficient materials to

¶28

¶29

proceed against the petitioner. He would submit to this Court that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. He would further vehemently argue and contend that except the voluntary statement of the father of respondent No.2, who is an interested witness, there are absolutely no materials indicating that the petitioner was insisting to bring dowry. He would also further contend that the charge sheet is not supported by the Medical evidence to prima-facie demonstrate that respondent No.2 had to undergo abortion on account of ill-treatment given by the petitioner and his parents. He would further contend that though in the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner insisted to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Bank and an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, the charge sheet does not contain any materials to substantiate and support the allegations made in the complaint. He would further point out that no documents are produced to demonstrate that the complainant's father kept fixed deposit in the Bank. He would

¶30

¶31

further contend that though serious allegations in regard to abortion are alleged against the petitioner, no documents are found in the charge sheet to substantiate the said allegations. Learned counsel would further bring to the notice of this Court that father of respondent No.2 is a retired Police Officer and except 161 statement, no materials are produced so as to proceed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Cr.P.C.

¶32

Referring to document No.1, which is produced by respondent No.2 for the first time before this Court, he would point out that these documents are all fabricated and got prepared. Referring to the said document issued by the Doctor, he would point out that it does not contain KMC number and it does not even contain the dates and address of the Doctor. Similarly referring to document No.2, which is the Certificate issued by the Doctor, he would point out that date is not mentioned in the Certificate and address is also not indicated in the Certificate issued by the Doctor.

¶33

¶34

Referring to the allegations made at para Nos.15 and 16 of the statement of objection, he would point out that these allegations are not found in the original complaint. Referring to the status of the petitioner and respondent No.2 - Complainant, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner is a Scientist and respondent No.2 - Complainant is an Engineer holding Bachelor of Degree in Computer Science. On these set of grounds, he would contend that since there are absolutely no materials to proceed against the petitioner, this Court can exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings and having regard to the status of the petitioner, who is serving as a Scientist, prays to quash the proceedings, failing which, the same would amount to abuse of process. Referring to charge sheet materials, he would contend that respondent No.2 is guilty of misusing the judicial process. He would vehemently argue and contend that respondent No.2 has resorted to unscrupulous tactics. Referring to the additional documents,

¶35

¶36

which are produced after five years of submitting charge sheet, he would vehemently argue and contend that undesirable methods and unethical moves are adopted by respondent No.2 and therefore, exercise of power under Section 482 would become imperative to thwart injustice and to promote justice.

¶37

To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments;

¶38

i . Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 2 KCCR (SN) 164.

¶39

ii. Tabrez Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2019 SC (Criminal) 1089.

¶40

iii. Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P reported in AIR 2022 (17) Scale 161.

¶41

iv. Arun Kumar vs. State by All Women Police Station, Tiruvalluvur (Madras

¶42

¶43

High Court) Criminal O.P No.4373/2020.

¶44

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant referring to the additional documents placed on record, would contend that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated the matter and charge sheet is defective. He would contend that though respondent No.2 had taken four witnesses. However, Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of those witnesses. Learned counsel further contends that respondent No.2 - Complainant has produced medical documents, which were in fact handed over to the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. Referring to these medical records, which are placed on record by way of additional documents, he would point out that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner and therefore, at this juncture, this Court cannot exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

¶45

¶46

To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on

¶47

the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Akhil Sharda and

¶48

Others¹ . He has also placed reliance on the following judgments.

¶49

(i) B.L.Udaykumar and others vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.439/2018.

¶50

(ii) Mangesh vs State of Maharashtra in Crl.Writ Petition No.566/2021.

¶51

(iii) Nitya Dharmananda vs Gopal Sheelum Reddy reported in (2018) 2 SCC 93.

¶52

(iv) Modinsab kasimsab Kanchagar vs State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.Appeal No.512/2007.

¶53

(v) Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472.

¶54

(vi) Rajiv Thapar and others vs Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330.

¶55

1 AIR Online 2022 SC 89

¶56

¶57

The Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet along with prosecution witnesses including the mother of the respondent No.2 - Complainant.

¶58

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the records.

¶59

The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner has made a dowry demand of Rs.3,00,000/- and 40 grams gold. The further allegations are that the petitioner was relentleesly insisting to secure fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/- in the name of

¶60

minor daughter and also invest an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs under Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana. In the complaint, it is also alleged that the petitioner was harassing respondent No.2 to get Rs.25,00,000/- for construction of residential house. There are also specific allegations that her second pregnancy was ended with abortion on account of harassment by the petitioner.

¶61

¶62

The relevant portion of the statement made by the

¶63

mother of respondent No.2 - complainant reads as under;

¶64

"ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ DvÀ£À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀjUÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ E®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¤ÃªÉÃ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ½î ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑPÁÌV £ÁªÀÅ ¸Àé EZÉÑ¬ÄAzÀ 5 ®PÀë gÀÆ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 200 UÁæA a£ÀßªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½, CzÀgÀAvÉ 1,00,000/- (MAzÀÄ ®PÀë) gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CzÀgÀ°è ¸ÀwÃ±ïPÀÄªÀiÁgÀ£À PÉÊAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.50 ¸Á«gÀ £ÀUÀzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ CPËAnUÉ 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ."

¶65

The statement of neighborers are also recorded by the Investigating Officer and some distant relatives. The statement of C.Ws.4 to 12 are also recorded by the Investigating Officer. The statement of these independent witnesses reveal that the petitioner and respondent No.2 was often quarreling with each other and respondent No.2 - Complainant was found to be short tempered. The statements also reveal that father-in-law of respondent No.2 -

¶66

¶67

Complainant used to accompany her to the office and then back to the house.

¶68

After filing of this petition before this Court, respondent No.2 - Complainant by way of additional evidence has placed on record the several documents more particularly certificates issued by the Doctor by name Dr.Srilekhaa Rajesh. In the statement of objection filed on 28.03.2023, she has come up with new allegations, which are not found in the complaint. At para No.31 of the Statement of Objection filed to the criminal petition, the respondent No.2 has alleged as under. The para Nos.31 to 35 are extracted as under;

¶69

" 31. That the respondent No.2 submits that on 08.03.2017, the respondent No.1 was beaten black and blue by the petitioner and was asked her to leave the house or else face the trauma. The respondent No.2 was traumatized with the words of the Petitioner and he called her father to take her along with him immediately. The father of respondent No.2 on the next day morning i.e., on

¶70

¶71

09.03.2017 at about 6.00 a.m. came and informed the petitioner that he has not come take his daughter but to console her but the petitioner and his privies forced him to take back the respondent No.2.

¶72

32. That the respondent No.2 submits that on 02.04.2017, respondent No.2 along with the minor child and her father went to the marital home but petitioner and his privies were reluctant and did not allow for re-union and they were driven out of the house by the petitioner and his privies in a helpless situation on 03.04.2017. Respondent No.2 went to Thyagarajnagar Police Station but the Police suggested that even after house warming ceremony if the petitioner and his privies do not take back the respondent No.2 and the child, then they would register the Complaint.

¶73

33. That the Respondent No.2 submits that on 8^th and 9^th of April 2017 petitioner and her father attended house warming ceremony and after the function respondent Nos.2's father asked the petitioner and his privies whether he can leave the respondent No.2 in the matrimonial home for which

¶74

¶75

petitioner and his privies refused to consider the request of respondent No.2's father and used foul languages threatened to death and also snatched respondent Nos.2's cell phone and forced her to leave her job and demanded money and property also said if Respondent No.2 is not agreeable to their terms, Petitioner threatened that he will file a case and they can never reside together as husband and wife which caused mental depression to respondent No.2.

¶76

34. That the respondent No.2 approached Women's Commission and also Thygarajanagar Police Station during the 2^nd week of April, 2017 and requested the Police Inspector to resolve the issue but the Petitioner on 22.04.2017 refused to come for counseling and therefore the request of respondent No.2's was closed on 04.05.2017.

¶77

35. That the respondent No.2 submits that she had requested the petitioner on many occasions to get child admitted to school but the petitioner denied to admit the child to school nor pay any amount for the admission for the child. That the petitioner has failed to discharge his obligation as a

¶78

¶79

father and failed to maintain the minor child. That the respondent No.2 has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/for minor child's education. Petitioner has no responsibility as duty bound husband towards respondent No.2 his daughter."

¶80

If these significant details are taken into consideration, I am of the view that the entire complaint coupled with the entire charge sheet materials do not constitute an offence alleged. Even if the entire charge sheet materials are accepted, then I am of the view that there is no legal evidence produced in support of the case. I have also taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are well qualified. Respondent No.2 was employed prior to marriage. Even after solemnization of marriage, she was employed. Therefore, the entire allegations made in the FIR and outcome of the investigation as found in the charge sheet, even if it is taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie constitute any offence. The materials collected by the Investigating Officer

¶81

¶82

during the course of investigation also does not disclose any commission of offence. The mother of respondent No.2 - Complainant has made a statement, which is part of the charge sheet that the petitioner has never demanded any dowry.

¶83

Now, if the allegations made in the statement of objections supported by additional documents are looked into, I am of the view that the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 is manifestly tainted with malafides. It is clearly evident that respondent No.2 with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner has lodged a false criminal case.

¶84

In the statement of objections filed before this Court, respondent No.2 has stated that on 08.03.2017, she was beaten black and blue by the petitioner and was asked her to leave her marital home, failing which, she would face trauma. This incident is not reflected in the written complaint

¶85

¶86

lodged by respondent No.2. The alleged incident is dated 08.03.2017 and the complaint is lodged in October, 2017. Therefore, neither allegations made at the first instance in the complaint nor allegations indicated in the statement of objections filed before this Court are found to be bonafide. On the contrary, this Court would find that these allegations and filing of a complaint is tainted with oblique motive.

¶87

Section 498A is inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of the husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty has potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman. The explanation of law on the subject relating to exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down sufficient guidelines and has also indicated in cases where this Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Inherent power of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is with a purpose and object of advancement of justice. If the criminal cases are

¶88

¶89

lodged with oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit the prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶90

STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL² .

¶91

It is equally trite law that it must be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels as found in the instant case would not come under the purview of "cruelty".

¶92

Though respondent No.2 has alleged that her father has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Bank and invested Rs.1.5 lakhs in the name of 1^st daughter, these documents are not part and parcel of the charge sheet materials.

¶93

2 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶94

¶95

This Court has not examined the additional

¶96

documents nor intends to hold a mini trial. What is taken cognizance of is charge sheet materials in support of allegations while lodging a complaint with the jurisdictional police station. The charge sheet materials does not indicate the existence of ingredients under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The allegations in regard to dowry demand are not found and the allegation that respondent No.2 - Complainant had to undergo abortion during second pregnancy is also not supported by any evidence in the charge sheet materials. Except 161 statement, no medical evidence is produced to substantiate the above said allegations. It is not in dispute that father of respondent No.2 is a retired Police Officer.

¶97

If these significant details are looked into, then I am of the view that the proceedings pending in

¶98

¶99

C.C.No.12399/2018 on the file of II ACMM Court, Bengaluru registered in Crime No.52/2017 are liable to be quashed.

¶100

The sine qua non for the exercise of inherent powers is the utter unavailability of materials to proceed for the offence punishable under Section 498 of IPC. In the present case on hand, I am more than satisfied that there is an imminent necessity in the larger interest of substantial justice and to prevent injustice, the proceedings pending in C.C.No.12399/2018 on the file of II ACMM Court, Bengaluru registered in Crime No.52/2017 are liable to be quashed.

¶101

On examining the facts of the present case particularly FIR and charge sheet materials, I find that there are no such allegations either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima-facie case. There are absolutely no materials indicating that conduct on the part of the petitioner, which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause respondent No.2 to commit suicide

¶102

¶103

or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in the charge sheet and in absence of thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case.

¶104

For the reasons stated supra, for want of materials to proceed against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is a fit case, wherein inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C needs to be exercised. This is a fit case to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.12399/2018 on the file of II ACMM Court, Bengaluru registered in Crime No.52/2017. Firstly, the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are accepted at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence to make out a case against the accused. Secondly, charge sheet does not constitute a legal evidence to proceed against the petitioner herein. Therefore, I

¶105

¶106

am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings will not only cause unnecessary burden but it is likely to cause distressing hardship on the petitioner - husband without resulting any fruitful purpose whatsoever.

¶107