Partly allowed

Chandrashekara M B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2023CRL.P/5999/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC prayed to quash proceedings regarding offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that except the husband, there were no specific allegations against other co-accused, making their prosecution an abuse of process. The FIR was quashed as it relates to petitioners 2-9.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition insofar as it relates to Accused Nos. 2 to 9 is allowed; impugned FIR insofar as it relates to petitioners Nos.2 to 9 is quashed.

Chandrashekara M B Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41677 CRL.P No. 5999 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5999 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRASHEKARA M B S/O BASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER,

¶8

SMT. SHWETHA M B W/O HARISH K R, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, RESIDING AT KODANAHALLI VILLAGE, KARAGADA POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶9

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

¶10

BASAVE GOWDA M M S/O LATE MALLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER,

¶11

SMT. OMKARAMMA W/O BASAVE GOWDA M M, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶12

HARISH K R S/O LATE RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KODANAHALLI VILLAGE, KARAGADA POST, BELUR TALUK-573 115 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41677 CRL.P No. 5999 of 2022

¶14

SUNIL KUMAR S H @ SUNIL GOWDA S/O SOME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. NUPURA M R W/O SUNIL KUMAR S H @ SUNIL GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HOME MAKER.

¶16

PETITIONER NOS.1, 3, 4, 6 AND 7 ALL ARE RESIDING AT BITTEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573217.

¶17

VEDAMURTHY P B, S/O BASAVARAJU C, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, RESIDING AT PURADAMATH, KENKERE POST, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572214.

¶18

SMT. MITHUNA H K W/O CHANDRASHEKARA, D/O. H.J. KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULLAHALLI VILLAGE, ALUR TLUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573218.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶23

SMT. SAMPRITHA J W/O CHANDRASHEKARA M B, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOME MAKER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MEGHA NILAYA, BEHIND GANESH SAW MILL, ARAVIND NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R-1.; SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:41677 CRL.P No. 5999 of 2022

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.26/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 504, 506, 307, 323 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THEREON AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 15.4.2019, and the petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law, the petitioner No.3 is the father-in-law, the petitioner No.4 is the mother-in-law, the petitioner No.5 is the brother-in-law, the petitioners No.6 to 8 are the relatives of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.9 is the second wife of the petitioner No.1 - accused No.1. They subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically, and also demanded money from the parental home. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶32

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, except the omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation against each of the petitioners as to how and in what manner they subjected the respondent No.2 to cruelty.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41677 CRL.P No. 5999 of 2022

¶35

Therefore, the continuation of investigation in the absence of any specific allegation will be an abuse of process of law.

¶36

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 submits that the allegation made in the FIR discloses the alleged offence against the petitioners, and the veracity of the allegation requires to be investigated, and at this stage, the registration of FIR does not warrant any interference.

¶37

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

5. Perusal of the FIR indicated that, except the omnibus and general allegation, there is no specific allegation as to how and in what manner each of the accused herein subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically. The specific allegation is against the accused No.1.

¶39

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 has held that, the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

¶40

7. In the present case, there is no specific allegation against the accused 2 to 9, except the general and omnibus allegations to constitute the above offences.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:41677 CRL.P No. 5999 of 2022

¶43

8. In the absence of any specific allegations as against the accused Nos.2 to 9, the continuation of investigation insofar as the petitioners Nos.2 to 9 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) Criminal petition insofar it relates to Accused Nos. 2 to 9 is allowed.

¶46

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.26/2022 registered by the Women Police Station, Chikkamagaluru pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioners No.2 to 9 - accused No.2 to 9 is hereby quashed.

¶47

iii) The respondent No.1 to proceed against the petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, and the observation if any is only for the purpose of this petition.

¶48

iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶49

v) The petitioners are permitted to carry out amendments in the cause title.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

BKM

Chandrashekara M B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekara M B 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N R M Nagarajan Vs State of Karnataka

Noorul Baig Vs State by Inspector of Police

Sri K.Mohammad Thabsheer Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammad Ali, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Annapurna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep Kumar Shekar Vs State of Karnataka