Dismissed

Sri Umesha M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023CRL.P/7310/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal petitions challenging FIR registration under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court held quashing improper as allegations require full investigation into alibi, employment, and delay in reporting, directing police to verify specific defense claims before final report.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions dismissed; respondent No.1 directed to investigate petitioner's specific claims regarding alibi, employment, and notice reply before filing final report in trial court.

Sri Umesha M Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7310 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6634 OF 2020

¶6

IN. CRL.P.NO.7310/2020:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI UMESHA M S/O MANJA NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS C/O MANNUR BASAVARAJU OPP. NEW GRAM PANCHAYATH OFFICE KUSTAGI ROAD, HANAMANALA, KUSTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583280.

¶9

SMT. SEETHA BAI W/O LATE MANJA NAIK AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. SATHISHA @ GIRISHA M S/O LATE MANJA NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶12

SMT. AMBIKA BAI W/O SATHISH @ GIRISHA M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶13

PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT SEVA NAGARA, KERESANTHE VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION, BELURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, NOW REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

NANDINI BAI W/O UMESHA M., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT HOYSALA BADAVANE HALEBEEDU TOWN, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573121.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶22

SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.144/2020 OF HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION, BELUR CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND SECTIONS 506, 355, 498A, 504, 147, 307, 114, 149, 143, 323 AND SECTION 354 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AS ANNEXURE-D PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT AT BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶24

IN. CRL.P.NO.6634/2020:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. PREMA BAI W/O BALAJI NAIK AGED BOUT 47 YEARS

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶28

SRI. BALAJI NAIK P S/O PUTTA NAIK AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶29

KUM. SMITHA D/O BALAJI NAIK AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶30

SACHIN S/O BALAJI NAIK AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶31

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SEVA NAGARA, KERESANTHE POST, SINGATAGERE HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST.-577548

¶32

…PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR, HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION, BELURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, NOW REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶36

NANDINI BAI, W/O UMESHA M., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT HOYSALA BADAVANE, HALEBEEDU TOWN, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573121

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶39

SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶40

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶41

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.144/2020 OF HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION, BELUR CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND SECTIONS 506, 355, 498A, 504, 147, 307, 114, 149, 143, 323 AND SECTION 354 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AT ANNEXRUE-D PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, AT BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petitioners in both these petitions have challenged the investigation launched against them in Crime No.144/2020 registered by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 355, 498A, 504, 147, 307, 114, 149, 143, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’).

¶45

The respondent No.2 submitted an information in writing before the respondent No.1 on 27.08.2020 that she was given in marriage to the petitioner No.1 in Crl. P. No.7310/2020 / accused No.1 and that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash was given as dowry apart from 450 gm of gold ornaments and 2 Kg. of silver articles. She alleged that she was residing with the

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶47

petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 for one month and thereafter, accused No.1 started demanding further dowry and a site to be purchased in his name. She alleged that all the accused joined in laying further demand of dowry and she was continuously harassed, abused both physically and mentally. She claimed that on 21.08.2020 at about 8.30 a.m., the petitioner No.1 / accused No.1 demanded her to bring dowry and a site which her mother had assured to give before the Gowri festival. He allegedly threatened the respondent No.2 of her life. On the same day, in the afternoon at 2 p.m., the petitioners in these petitions bundled her into a vehicle and took her to her mother’s house at Halebeedu at 3.30 p.m. She alleged that the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 started hitting her with slippers and when questioned, he demanded the promised dowry. She also alleged that the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 attempted to kill her using a stone lying on the road side. She also alleged that the other accused joined and physically harmed her. She claimed that the residents nearby on hearing the commotion, came and rescued her.

¶48

Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered

¶49

Crime No.144/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶51

143, 147, 149, 323, 354, 355, 307, 498A, 114, 504, 506 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961 and took up the investigation. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the investigation undertaken.

¶52

Petitioner No.1 in Crl.P No.7310/2020 claimed that he was working as a Deputy Range Forest Officer-cumSurveyor in Hanamanal Section, Kushtagi Territorial Range, Koppal District, and therefore, the allegation that he had assaulted the respondent No.2 is false and without any basis. He has also placed on record the certificate dated 02.11.2020 (Annexure ‘E’) issued by the Range Forest Officer, Kushtagi range, and copy of the extract of the movement register of the petitioner No.1 / accused No.1 maintained at the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hanamanal, which discloses that petitioner No.1 had not availed any leave between 01.08.2020 and 31.08.2020.

¶53

He also contends that the petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.6634/2020 was employed as a teacher at Government Higher Primary School, Mallaghatta, Kaduru Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. He therefore, contends that the

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶55

information filed by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 is therefore false. Further, he contends that a notice for restitution of conjugal rights was issued by the petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.7310/2020 on 04.08.2020 and that a reply was issued by the respondent No.2 on 25.08.2020 where she indicated her willingness to join her husband if a separate accommodation is made. He contends that in the reply notice, respondent No.2 did not disclose about the incident that allegedly happened on 21.08.2020. He therefore, contends that the complaint is false.

¶56

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent No.2 is employed as a Dairy Extension Officer at KMF and that she is a qualified person. He contends that the respondent No.2 has clearly indicated the role of each of the accused in the commission of the offence and therefore, it is for the investigating officer to look into the same and arrive at a conclusion whether the petitioners have committed an offence or not. He submits that it is too premature to hold that the petitioners have not committed any offence.

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶58

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have all conspired to throw the respondent No.2 out of the matrimonial home with an intention to raise more dowry and obtain a site from the parents of the respondent No.2. He submitted that on 21.08.2020, there was an incident in which the respondent No.2 was bundled into a car and was brought to the parents' house of the respondent No.2 where she was beaten black and blue with a slipper. He claimed that the husband of the respondent No.2 attempted to kill her and therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶59

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶60

The information filed by the respondent No.2 with the respondent No.1 was on 27.08.2020 wherein she alleged that her husband had demanded further dowry and a site and that when the respondent No.2 did not heed to his demand, he brought her to her parents house and assaulted her in front of

¶61

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶62

her parents and also attempted to murder her. Though the husband of the respondent No.2 and the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2 claimed that they were nowhere near the house of the parents of the respondent No.2, as they were working, the alibi set up by the petitioners is something that the investigating officer will have to take note of before filing the charge-sheet. The investigating officer also has to take into account the notice issued to the respondent No.2 for restitution of conjugal rights as well as reply issued by the respondent No.2, where the respondent No.2 did not disclose about the commission of the offence on 21.08.2020. The respondent No.1 is bound to conduct an investigation taking into account all the fact situation including the question whether the other accused were residing in one house where the respondent No.2 was residing with them. The investigating officer is bound to take into consideration these facts since the allegation is that the matrimonial dispute between the respondent No.2 and her husband is marred due to the demand of dowry. As the allegations requires a full-fledged investigation by the investigating officer, it is improper for this Court to exercise jurisdiction to set at naught the investigation.

¶63

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:34318 CRL.P No. 7310 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 6634 of 2020

¶64

In that view of the matter, these petitions are dismissed . However, the respondent No.1 before filing a *final report before the Trial Court, shall look into the claim of the husband as well as the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2 that they were working at Kushtagi taluk and Kaduru Taluk respectively. He shall also look into various other circumstances pleaded by the petitioners in these petitions including the notice issued by the husband of the respondent No.2 for restitution of conjugal rights and the consequent reply issued by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 shall ensure that before *final report is filed before the Trial Court, these circumstances are particularly looked into.

¶65

In view of dismissal of the petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

SMA – para Nos.1 to 4 PMR – para No.5 till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

¶68

*Corrected vide Court order dated 06.12.2023.

Sri Umesha M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umesha M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srinivasa Ganiga Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. H.K. Ehethashamul Haq, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Oneil D Souza Vs Smt.Joeann Sequeria

Vasanthakumar T P Vs Aslam Pasha

Mirle Varadaraj Vs State of Karnataka

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