Allowed

Mahesh @ Harish M D v. State by Yelahanka Police

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023CRL.P/6295/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings based on dowry harassment allegations and criminal conspiracies. The bench quashed the prosecutions, finding that the wife's repeated complaints after surrendering custody of her child and resolving the dispute with the husband constituted an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in C.C.No.8646/2021 and C.C.No.129/2022 was quashed for abuse of process of law.

Mahesh @ Harish M D Vs State by Yelahanka Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6295 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6283 OF 2022

¶8

IN CRL.P.NO.6295/2021:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MAHESH @ HARISH M D S/O. DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MATHRU NILAYA, 1^ST HOUSE, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, PRAKRUTHINAGARA, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064 AND ALSO AT MUDHARAVALLI VILLAGE, SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI, SOMAWARPET TALUK KODAGU DIST-571235 …PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY YELAHANKA POLICE BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶15

SMT. CHAITRA W/O. MAHESH M D AGED 35 YEARS, MATHRU NILAYA 1^ST HOUSE, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS PRAKRUTHINAGARA YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶18

PERMANENT ADDRESS BYAGADAHALLI VILLAGE, HETHUR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DIST-573134

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶21

SMT. RAJANI BELLUBBI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8646/2021 (CR.NO.200/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 506, 420, 471 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶23

IN CRL.P.No.6283/2022

¶24

BETWEEN

¶25

MAHESHA M.D. S/O. DEVAPPA M.J. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. B32/302 GANGA BLOCK JNANABARATHI ENCLAVE VALGERIHALLI KENGERI BENGALURU - 560058 ALSO R/AT MUDARAVALLI VILLAGE SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMAVARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571235

¶26

RAGHU M.D S/O. DHARME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT MUDARAVALLI VILLAGE SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMAVARAPETE TALUK

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶28

KODAGU DISTRICT - 571235

¶29

MAMATHA M D W/O. YATHISH D P AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT. VISHWAKARMAA SHANGHA ROAD, BASHAWESHWARA NAGARA CHIKKA KOLATHUR SHANIVARASANTHE SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571235

¶30

DEVAPPA M J JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT MUDARAVALLI VILLAGE SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMAVARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571235

¶31

YATHISH D P S/O. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT VISHWAKARMAA SHANGHA ROAD, BASHAWESHARA NAGARA CHIKKA KOLATHUR SHANIVARASANTHE SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571235

¶32

REENA M D W/O. YATHISH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. SAVANUR VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST - 574220

¶33

YATHISH CHANDRA S/O. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SAVANUR VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST - 574220

¶34

PARWATHY M D S/O DEVAPPA M J

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶37

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. MUDARAVALLI VILLAGE SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMAVARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571235

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND

¶41

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUDU POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560001

¶42

CHAITHRA B C D/O. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.4, 3^RD FLOOR, 6^TH MAIN, NYANYAPPA ROAD, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL YAJAMANA LAYOUT BEGURU, BENGALURU - 560068 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BYAGADAHALLI VILLAGE VANAGOOR POST SAKLESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DIST - 573123

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶45

SMT. RAJANI PRAKASH BELLUBBI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶46

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.129/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT ARAKALAGUDU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A READ WITH 149 OF IPC IN CR.NO.14/2021 OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT ARAKALAGUDU POLICE AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶49

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

¶50

ORDER

¶51

In Crl.P.No.6295/2021, the petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him by the respondent No.1 in C.C.No.8646/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶52

Criminal Petition No.6283/2022 is filed by the petitioners to quash the prosecution launched against them by the respondent No.1 in C.C.No.129/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of IPC, pending trial before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgud.

¶53

The respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.6295/2021 is the wife of the petitioner therein. She filed a private complaint in PCR No.11859/2020 alleging commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6283/2022 which was referred for investigation to the respondent No.1. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under

¶54

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶55

Sections 498A, 506, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶56

The summary of the charge sheet disclose that the respondent No.2 was given in marriage to the petitioner on 11.03.2012. The respondent No.2 claimed that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as dowry apart from 120 g.ms., of gold. She alleged that the petitioner was employed as a LIC agent and was also working at the Customs Department at the Airport and had come in contact with many women. She alleged that the petitioner was treating her cruelly and was suspecting her fidelity and used to lock her up, before he left for work. When questioned, she was abused both mentally and physically and he demanded the respondent No.2 to bring more dowry from her parents. The Trial Court after perusing the charge sheet and the material produced along with it, took cognizance of the offences mentioned above and registered C.C.No.8646/2021 and issued process to the petitioner, which is challenged in the present petition.

¶57

The respondent No.2 later informed the respondent

¶58

No.1 in Crl.P.No.6283/2022 about the commission of cognizable

¶59

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶60

offences, consequent to which Cr.No.14/2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 506, 328, 307 342 read with Section 149 of IPC. After an investigation, the respondent No.1 filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and the Trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and registered C.C.No.129/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 149 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2 had relationship with a person named Mohan Kumar which was the sole cause for the matrimonial disputes between the husband and the wife. He contended that the respondent No.2 without any information, ran away from the matrimonial home along with daughter on 29.07.2020 in respect of which, a missing complaint was registered before the Arkalgudu police station who registered Cr.No.206/2020. The police after investigating the said offence, traced the respondent No.2 and found her to be in the company of a person named, Mohan Kumar. The respondent No.2 was brought to the police station along with Mohan Kumar where

¶62

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶63

she gave a statement that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home to go with Mohan Kumar. The statement of Mohan Kumar was recorded, where he disclosed that the respondent No.2 and he knew each other and were in love with each other even before the marriage of the respondent No.2. He also disclosed his intention to marry the respondent No.2, after she divorced her husband. The statement of the respondent No.2 was also recorded, in terms of which, she claimed that she was interested to go with Mohan Kumar and therefore, surrendered the daughter to the custody of her husband. This was on 05.08.2020. Soon thereafter i.e., on 17.12.2020, the respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint which resulted in a case in Cr.No.200/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 420, 471, 468, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The jurisdictional police after conducting the investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He contends that the respondent No.2 thereafter lodged another complaint before the Arkalgudu police station in Cr.No.14/2021 for the offences punishable

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶65

under Sections 363, 506, 328, 307, 342 read with Section 149 of IPC and the jurisdictional police after an investigation filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 149 of IPC. He submitted that prosecution against the petitioners was subsequent to closing the missing complaint lodged by the petitioner/husband on 05.08.2020. He submits that the respondent No.2 having once filed a private complaint which was referred for investigation in Cr.No.200/2020, could not have invoked the process of law by filing another complaint before the Arkalgudu police station, virtually for the same offences. He therefore, submitted that the respondent No.2 has abused the process of law by lodging the complaints after the issue was sorted out amicably before the respondent No.2 and petitioner.

¶66

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶67

No.2 contends that the respondent No.2 was forced to give a statement in Cr.No.206/2020 that she was interested to marry Mohan Kumar and to handover the custody of the daughter to her husband. She contends that apart from this, she submits that a General Power of Attorney was executed by the respondent No.2 on 04.08.2020 in respect of a flat that was

¶68

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶69

purchased in the name of respondent No.2. Likewise a gift deed was executed on 07.08.2020. She also contended that following this, a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also filed before the Senior Civil Judge Somwarpet on 05.08.2020. She therefore, submits that the respondent No.2 was petrified by her husband and his friends who threatened of physical harm and thus, out of fear, she recorded her statement and executed the documents demanded by her husband. She contended that the allegations made against the petitioners attracted offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 420, 471, 468, 467 of IPC and therefore, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction to set at naught the prosecution.

¶70

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand contended that after thorough investigation, the respondent No.1 in both these petitions have filed a separate charge sheet and therefore, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶73

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶74

It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 was given in marriage to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6295/2021 on 11.03.2012. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.2 delivered a baby on 16.06.2014 and a girl child on 14.06.2017. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 claimed that the elders from both the sides organized a panchayat to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. However, the petitioner/husband demanded more money and property and he and his friends poisoned Mr. Mohan Kumar with an intention to kill him. Therefore, the respondent No.2 was forced to leave matrimonial home along with her daughter on 29.07.2020. The petitioner/husband lodged a missing complaint on 30.07.2020 and the respondent No.2 was traced at Bidadi. It was found by the jurisdictional police that the respondent No.2 was in the company of Mr. Mohan Kumar and therefore, after recording their statements, the jurisdictional police sought permission from the Superintendent of Police to close the complaint as the respondent No.2 desired to go with

¶75

12 -

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶77

Mohan Kumar, after giving away the custody of the daughter to her husband. The case stood closed on 05.08.2020 by which time, the husband had obtained a power of attorney in respect of the property that stood in the name of respondent No.2 and also filed a petition before the Senior Civil Judge, Somwarpet in M.C.No.35/2020 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

¶78

All these events happened by 06.08.2020. Thereafter, on 19.08.2020, for the first time, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the police station at Yelahanka, where a non-cognizable report was registered. Following which, the respondent No.2 filed a private complaint which was referred to Yelahanka police for investigation. The jurisdictional police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 420, 471, read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶79

In the further statement of respondent No.2 recorded, she for the first time claimed that her husband had demanded additional dowry and also that her husband had forcibly taken power of attorney in respect of a flat that she

¶80

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶81

owned. Thereafter, she again lodged another complaint before the Arkalgudu police station against not only her husband but also against his friends and other relatives alleging that her husband and his friends assaulted Mr. Mohan Kumar and kidnapped her and daughter, and Mohan kumar and took them to Anjandri lodge in Arkalgudu on 03.08.2020. She therefore requested the Arkalgudu police station to take suitable action and restore the custody of her child. It is therefore clear that the respondent No.2 having run away from matrimonial home to lead a life with a person named Mohan Kumar has after surrendering the custody of the daughter, and giving a declaration before the police that she has no intention to return back to the husband, has presented a slew of complaints before the Yelahanka and Arkalgudu police station, which is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law.

¶82

In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be subjected to continuous harassment at the instance of respondent No.2. Therefore, Crl.P.No.6295/2021 is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.8646/2021 (Cr.No.200/2020) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 420 471 read with

¶83

14 -

¶84

NC: 2023:KHC:47008 CRL.P No. 6295 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6283 of 2022

¶85

Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending trial before XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is quashed and Crl.P.No.6283/2022 is also allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.129/2022 (Cr.No.14/2021) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 149 of IPC pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, at Arkalgudu is quashed.

¶86

It is however open for the respondent No.2 to pursue any other remedy that are available to her in accordance with law. Any observations made by this Court is only for the limited purpose of considering these petitions and shall not come in the way of respondent No.2 pursuing any remedy in accordance with law.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Mahesh @ Harish M D v. State by Yelahanka Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh @ Harish M D v. State by Yelahanka Police

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

Manjappa Vs State by Women'S Police

Smt. Seeramma, Vs Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah

Sri. Prateepa T Vs R. Venkatesh

Mr Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Aroon Purie Vs State of Karnataka

Roohulla Vs Smt Fouziya