Allowed

Smt Shwetha v. State by Tumakuru Women Police Station

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRL.P/7194/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against the petitioner in a dowry and cruelty case. The court held that specific overt acts of cruelty were absent, implying false implication and abuse of process, especially given the petitioner's absence during the alleged acts.

What did the court decide?

Instrumentality proceedings in C.C. No. 9655/2021 against the petitioner were quashed.

Smt Shwetha Vs State by Tumakuru Women Police Station — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40542 CRL.P No. 7194 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7194 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHWETHA, W/O DHARMADHARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NO.25, 2ND MAIN, IST CROSS, OLD CAUVERY SCHOOL ROAD, 2ND CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUDHARSHAN L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY TUMAKURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

SMT. K. T. NALINI, W/O G.N. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O OLD CAUVERY SCHOOL ROAD, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, TUMAKURU - 572 102.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.9655/2021 AND IN CRIME N.01/2020 ON THE FILE OF TUMAKURU WOMEN POLICE STATION AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 498(A), 323, 342, 307, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:40542 CRL.P No. 7194 of 2022

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Initially FIR was registered against the petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 498(A), 323, 342, 307, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶21

The police after investigation dropped the petitioner from the charge sheet, and submitted the charge sheet against the husband and parents-in-law. Respondent No.2 filed an application with the learned Magistrate to direct the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation on the ground that the investigation conducted against the petitioner was not fair and impartial. The police after further investigation submitted the charge sheet with the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 had categorically admitted that the petitioner had visited India for delivery and at that time she had not subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, the police taking into account the said statement rightly dropped the petitioner and as an after thought the respondent No.2 has given statement during the course of further investigation that she was subjected to cruelty.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the additional charge sheet clearly establishes that the

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40542 CRL.P No. 7194 of 2022

¶25

petitioner herein subjected the respondent No.2 to cruelty and the veracity of the allegation against the petitioner can be considered at the time of trial and same cannot be gone into in this petition.

¶26

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would reiterate the submissions made by respondent No.2.

¶27

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

¶28

It is undisputed that the petitioner is a sister-in-law, married and residing in Germany. The petitioner who was pregnant came to India and she was admitted on 12.08.2019 in the hospital for delivery and she was discharged from hospital on 19.08.2019, after delivering a male baby. FIR came to be lodged on 04.01.2020. In the further statement recorded on 10.01.2020, respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the petitioner herein has not meted out any cruelty to her. The police after the investigation dropped the petitioner from the charge sheet. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an application with the learned Magistrate to direct the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation. During the course of the further investigation, respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioner subjected her to cruelty, since from the date of her marriage. The petitioner is residing at Germany since 2014 and stamping on the passport annexed to this petition indicated that, she visited India in the year 2019 which clearly disclose that petitioner was not residing in the matrimonial home of accused

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40542 CRL.P No. 7194 of 2022

¶30

No.1 and respondent No.2 and she had visited her parents only for delivery. Perusal of the statements discloses that except omnibus and general allegation, there is no specific overact as to how, and in what manner, the petitioner subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty. Therefore, it clearly infers that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Criminal petition is allowed ;

¶33

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.9655/2021, pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, insofar as it relates to petitioner herein stands quashed.

¶34

iii) Learned Magistrate shall proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order, and observation made if any, is only for the purpose of the present petitioner.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

CPN

Smt Shwetha v. State by Tumakuru Women Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shwetha v. State by Tumakuru Women Police Station

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

Srinivasa L Vs State of Karnataka

Ashwini Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Abhishek Rana, Vs State of Karnataka by

Usha C R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandra M.C. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Murthy C v Vs Sri M K Muniraj