Partly allowed

Sri. Puneetha @ Puttaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023CRL.P/8249/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed two combined Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC. It quashed the prosecution initiated against accused persons who were distant family relatives involved in the second marriage of the primary accused, citing abuse of process of law, while allowing the trial to continue against the primary accused and their immediate parents.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the prosecution initiated against Accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, while allowing the criminal trial to continue against Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Sri. Puneetha @ Puttaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8249 OF 2019

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8877 OF 2019

¶8

IN CRL.P.NO.8249/2019:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. PUNEETHA @ PUTTARAJU S/O SRI GOPI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. GOPI @ KRISHNAPPA S/O SRI. SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O SRI. GOPI @ KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶13

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE THE

¶14

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

R/O. UPPARA BEEDHI, MAVINATHOPU, DODDAPETE, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 123.

¶16

SMT. SHRUTHI W/O SRI. MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶17

SRI. MALLIKARJUNA S/O SRI. NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶18

PETITIONER NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO.32, 2^ND MAIN, KASTURINAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU CITY-560 016.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶24

SMT. PRIYA K., D/O SRI. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.61, BESTARA BEEDHI, DODDAPETE, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

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

¶27

SRI. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 UNDER SECTION 498A READ WITH 149 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE D.P ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.27/2019 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.438/2018) AND ETC.

¶29

IN CRL.P.NO.8877/2019:

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

SMT. SARASWATHI @ SHALINI D/O. SRI MALLESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶32

SRI. MALLESHA S/O LATE SRI MARIYAPPA,

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶34

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶35

SMT. SHOBHA W/O SRI MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶36

SRI. MYLARI S/O SRI MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶37

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BANDIPALYA VILLAGE, UTTHANAHALLI CROSS, NEAR TOLL GATE JWALAMUKHI TRIPURA SUNDARI TEMPLE, MYSURU TOWN, MYSURU-570 010.

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶42

SMT PRIYA K., D/O SRI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.61 BESTARA BEEDHI, DODDAPETE, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-573123.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

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

¶45

SRI. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA 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 CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.6 TO 9 UNDER SECTION 498(A)

¶47

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶48

READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-C PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.27/2019 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.438/2018) AND ETC.

¶49

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

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Crl.P.No.8249/2019 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.27/2019 challenging the prosecution launched against them by the Senior Civil Judge and JFMC, Kunigal for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as 'D.P.Act' for short).

¶52

Crl.P.No.8877/2019 is filed by the accused Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 in C.C.No.27/2019 pending trial before the Senior Civil Judge and JFMC, Kunigal for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

¶53

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶54

The respondent no.1 registered an FIR in Cr.No.438/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, on the information furnished by the respondent No.2 on 10.12.2018.

¶55

The respondent No.2 claimed that she married accused No.1 on 16.03.2012 against the wishes of her parents, who did not attend the marriage. She claimed that the family members of the accused No.1 performed their marriage. She claimed that she delivered a baby boy within a year. She claimed that her family members had given 85 gms., of gold ornaments to the accused No.1, as they could not attend the marriage. She alleged that the accused No.1 intended to construct a house and therefore, forced her to bring a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from her parents. She claimed that the accused No.1 used to physically ill-treat her, abuse her, sent her to the parents house and warned her not to come back without the money. She went to her parents house and narrated the incident, following which, her father gave her a sum of Rs.50,000/- and instructed her to hand over the money to the accused No.1. She alleged that she

¶56

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶57

handed over the said sum of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1, who remained quite for a week and later started demanding for more money and again sent her back to her parents house. She alleged that within three months, she went to his house with the balance money. However, she alleged that accused No.1 had married another person and threw her out of the house. She claimed that she obtained an order of injunction from the Court on 24.06.2016 that the accused No.1 should not marry any other person. Despite the order of injunction, the accused had all conspired together and performed the marriage of accused No.1 with Shalini. She alleged that when she was alive, the accused No.1 could not have married another person without her consent. She therefore, alleged that all the accused were responsible for the illegal acts and therefore, requested respondent No.1 to initiate suitable action.

¶58

After registering the case, the respondent No.1

¶59

took up investigation and filed a final report for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process. Being

¶60

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶61

aggrieved by the said order, the accused are before this Court in these petitions.

¶62

The learned counsel for the accused submit that

¶63

the respondent No.2 had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Senior Civil Judge, Kunigal in M.C.No.46/2015. In addition, she has also filed a petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the accused No.1 claiming maintenance. She again filed another

¶64

suit for injunction restraining the accused No.1 from marrying another person. This apart, she also filed petition in Crl.Misc. (D.V.Act) No.181/2017 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners contend that the instant complaint is the last in the string of cases filed by her. They claimed that accused No.1 had not married the accused No.6. Further they contend that respondent No.2 made allegations regarding demand of dowry only against the accused No.1 and not against any other accused. Therefore, they contend that instant prosecution launched against the petitioners be quashed, as it is a clear abuse of the process of law. They further contend that the Trial Court without application of

¶65

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶66

mind, blindly took cognizance of the offences. They contend that a reading of the entire charge sheet and materials placed with the charge sheet does not disclose commission of offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶67

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are clear allegations of demand of dowry by the accused No.1, his parents and the way in which the respondent No.2 was thrown out of the matrimonial house, did constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of IPC. He contended that the accused No.1 had demanded money for the construction of a house and also collected a sum of Rs.50,000/- thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶68

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there were specific allegations against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, therefore, no indulgence can be shown to quash the charge sheet against them. In so far as the other accused are concerned, she claimed that all of

¶69

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶70

them had conspired in arranging for the second marriage of accused No.1 and therefore, they all liable to be prosecuted.

¶71

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶72

learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶73

A perusal of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 with the respondent No.1 shows that she lived with the accused No.1 blissfully, till she delivered a baby boy. It was only thereafter she alleged that accused No.1 started demanding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to meet the expenses of construction of a house. She alleged that he received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent No.2 and thereafter started demanding for the balance money. She claimed that when she went to the house of accused No.1 with the balance amount, he claimed that he had already married again and thereafter threw her out of the house. She alleged that the family members of the accused No.1, the parents of the second wife of accused No.1, her uncle and other family members were responsible for the second marriage of

¶74

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶75

accused No.1. Therefore, except the allegation of demand for dowry by accused No.1 and that his parents had arranged the second marriage of accused No.1, there are no allegations against any of the other accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of

¶76

Bihar and others - (2022) 6 SCC 599 had held that roping the distant family relatives into an offence under Section 498A of IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Thus taking cue from the said judgment, the impugned prosecution launched against the accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, deserves to be set at naught. However, the prosecution of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 can continue, in view of the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet.

¶77

In view of the above, the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) Crl.P.No.8249/2019 is allowed in part.

¶80

(ii) The prosecution initiated against the petitioner

¶81

Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.27/2019 pending on the file fo the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

¶82

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:44964 CRL.P No. 8249 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 8877 of 2019

¶83

Kunigal, for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of the IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of

¶84

D.P.Act is quashed.

¶85

(iii) Crl.P.No.8877/2019 is allowed and the

¶86

prosecution against petitioners / accused Nos.6 to 9 in C.C.No.27/2019 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

¶87

D.P. Act, is quashed.

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

¶90

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Puneetha @ Puttaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Puneetha @ Puttaraju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a S Ashok Kumar Vs Sri Venkatachalapathy Shetty

Sri C Honnaiah Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs Ms B R Sreeranjini

Sri.Kalikamba Vinayaka Temple Vs Sri.Harischandra Acharya

J Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

H R Gangadharappa Vs State of Karnataka