Partly allowed

Shri.Amit Iranna Shettasadavarti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2023CRL.RP/100201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the Karnataka High Court partly allowed the plea against a discharge rejection order. The Court acquitted the husband's parents of dowry-related charges due to lack of specific allegations but affirmed the charges against the husband, who lived with the deceased.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the discharge application of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 is set aside; the order against Accused No. 1 is affirmed.

Shri.Amit Iranna Shettasadavarti Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100201/2019

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

¶11

SHRI.AMIT IRANNA SHETTASADAVARTI AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS OCC: PVT. SERVICE IN HDFC BANK PRESENTLY AT HUBBALLI EARLIER AT PLOT NO.325 HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019 BUT NOW ON BEING TRANSFERRED R/AT: 4^TH CROSS, SAINAGAR, UNKAL DHARWAD-580031.

¶12

MAMATHA

¶13

Digitally signed by J MAMATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.02.17 14:32:46 +0530

¶14

SHRI.IRANNA TARAPATI SHETTASADAVARTI AGED: ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC: RTD BANK MANAGER 4^TH CROSS, SAI NAGAR, UNKAL HUBBALLI-580031. 3. SMT.GAYATRI W/O IRANNA SHETTASADAVARTI AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE 4^TH CROSS, SAI NAGAR, UNKAL HUBBALLI-580031. .....PETITIONERS (BY SRI ASHOK R KALYANASHETTY, ADV.)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (APMC P S, BELAGAVI), BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERALS OFFICE, HIGH COURT BENCH PREMISES, DHARWAD-580011. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2019 PASSED BY THE VI-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN S.C.NO.298/2015 ON THEIR APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. AND DISCHARGE THEM, AS PRAYED THEREIN OF ALL THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 304-B R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON 09.12.2022 AT DHARWAD BENCH, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2019 in S.C.298/2015 on the file of the learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, wherein the petitioners filed an application under section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge from the charges leveled against them.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the rankings of the parties will be considered henceforth according to their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶24

Briefly stated facts of the case are;

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that, the brother of the deceased had lodged a complaint stating that, the deceased Shilpa was given to marriage to accused No.1. The marriage

¶26

¶27

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶28

was performed 2½ years ago as on the date of the alleged incident i.e., on 27/08/2014. It is further alleged that, accused No.1 is an MBA graduate and was working in HDFC Bank, Belagavi. Both accused No.1 and deceased Shilpa were residing at Belagavi in a rented house. The couple had no children. It is further alleged that, the accused No.1 was demanding deceased Shilpa to bring dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- to run another business, in addition to the bank employment. The said facts were known to the parents of the deceased and the parents of the deceased have, in turn, informed the accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents of accused No.1. They have also informed through phone that the parents of the deceased should pay the dowry as demanded by accused No.1. Such being the fact, on 26.08.2014, when the complainant was in Dharwad, accused No.1 has enquired him that, whether deceased Shilpa had been to his house or not? The complainant replied that, Shilpa had not come to Dharwad and also tried to contact deceased Shilpa and accused No.1 continuously. As the deceased Shilpa and accused No.1, could not receive the phone, the complainant went to Belagavi at about 10.00 p.m. and found that, people were gathering in front of the house where the deceased Shilpa was living as a tenant. On seeing that, he entered into her house and found

¶29

¶30

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶31

that deceased Shilpa was hanged to death. Having suspected the foul play of accused No.1, the complainant insisted the body to be subjected for postmortem. After the postmortem, complaint came to be lodged against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 regarding demand of dowry and also harassment inflicted to the deceased. As a result, the police have registered a case for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). After conducting the investigation, the police have inserted section 34 of IPC and also sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short “DP Act”).

¶32

After submitting the charge sheet, summons were issued against accused Nos.1 to 3. Being aggrieved by issuance of summons, the accused Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed discharge application under section 227 of Cr.P.C, it was rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶33

Heard Sri.Ashok R.Kalyanashetty, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for respondent / State.

¶34

¶35

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶36

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, the entire allegations are omnibus in nature and no specific overt act is attributed against the individual accused. The allegations in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 are not attracted as they were residing separately. Mere mentioning about the demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- in the complaint will not be sufficient to invoke the provisions stated supra.

¶37

It is further submitted that prior to the death of Smt.Shilpa, there were no panchayats about the demand of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and also no complaint was lodged by the parents of the deceased. Therefore, merely because the deceased died in the house of accused No.1 would not be appropriate to implicate the accused Nos.1 to 3 as if they have committed dowry death. The entire charge sheet would not disclose any allegations to invoke provision under section 304-B of IPC. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to allow the petition.

¶38

Per contra, Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned HCGP for

¶39

the respondent justifying the findings for rejection of discharge application and submits that, it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the deceased and accused No.1 had taken

¶40

¶41

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶42

place within 2 ½ years from the date of marriage. It is also not in dispute that, they were residing separately at Belagavi. Further, it is submitted by learned HCGP that, the allegations made prima facie satisfy to frame the charges against the accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the Trial Court at the stage of framing the charge has to find out as to whether the averments of the charge sheet prima facie discloses the offences or not. The Trial Court after considering the entire material available on record, opined that, there are grounds to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 3 and rightly rejected the discharge application. Making the said submissions, the learned HCGP prays to reject the petition.

¶43

My anxious and thoughtful consideration with regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the documents available in the records, the points which arise for my consideration are:

¶44

1) Whether the order of rejecting the discharge application by the Trial Court is sustainable?

¶45

2) Whether the revision petitioners have made out grounds to interfere with the order of rejection of discharge application?

¶46

¶47

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶48

It is the case of the prosecution that, the marriage between the deceased and accused No.1 had taken place on 07.11.2011. CW.1 is the brother of the deceased and also the complainant. CWs.6 and 7 are father and mother of the deceased respectively. Shankaragouda Biradara is the owner of the property where the alleged incident had taken place. However, he was not cited as charge sheet witness, but, his son-in-law / CW.11 is the witness to the incident.

¶49

Before adverting to the other facts of the case, it is necessary to analyse the scope of the Trial Court in dealing with the discharge application. It is to be noted here that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA¹ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has formulated guiding principles. Para 13 is extracted as under;

¶50

“ 13. In a subsequent decision i.e. in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] , this Court after adverting to the conditions enumerated in Section 227 of the Code and other decisions of this Court, enunciated the following principles: (SCC p. 9, para 10)

¶51

“(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the

¶52

1 (2010) 2 SCC 398

¶53

¶54

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶55

Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

¶56

(2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

¶57

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

¶58

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros

¶59

¶60

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶61

and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”

¶62

Similarly, in another case namely PALVINDER SINGH v. BALVINDER SINGH² , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge at the time of discharge is very limited. Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time.

¶63

Keeping in mind the ratio of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is necessary to analyse the prima facie case made out against the petitioners herein. Admittedly, CWs.6 and 7 are the parents of the deceased. They have made statement before the jurisdictional police under section 161 of Cr.P.C. According to them, both accused No.1 and deceased were living at Belagavi prior to the incident. It is alleged that, the accused No.1 demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and further it is stated that, the said fact of demanding Rs.2,00,000/- by accused No.1 was informed to the parents of the accused No.1, they also supported the accused No.1.

¶64

2 (2009) 3 SCC 850

¶65

10 -

¶66

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶67

Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.SUBBA RAO v. STATE OF TELANGANA³ , para No.6 reads thus:

¶68

“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. 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.”

¶69

On careful perusal of the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has not collected the call details in respect

¶70

of phone call made to accused Nos.2 and 3. Merely alleging that accused Nos.2 and 3 have supported accused No.1in demanding dowry would not be sufficient. On reading of entire charge sheet, no other allegations are made against them to invoke the provisions of sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC. In the absence of collecting the material evidence, it would not be sufficient to infer that accused Nos.2 and 3 have supported accused No.1 in demanding Rs.2,00,000/- as alleged by the parents of the deceased. Admittedly, it is to be noted here

¶71

3 (2018) 14 SCC 452

¶72

11 -

¶73

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶74

that, prior to the death of Smt.Shilpa, the deceased and accused No.1 were living separately from accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also omnibus allegations made against the parents of accused No.1, the application for discharge filed by the parents of accused No.1 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 3 in respect of demand of dowry are unsustainable.

¶75

As regards the accused No.1 is concerned, he is the husband of the deceased Shilpa, and he was residing along with her in a rented house at Belagavi and it is also to be noted here that, the death of deceased Shilpa had taken place in the house where accused No.1 was residing. Unless he explains the cause of her death in his house, prima facie the allegations against accused No.1 are satisfied to proceed to frame the charge. Therefore, the order of rejecting the discharge application by the Trial Court against accused No.1 requires to be affirmed.

¶76

In the light of the observations made above, the

¶77

points which arose for my consideration are answered as point No.1 in the ‘partly in the negative’ and point No.2 in the ‘partly in the affirmative’. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶78

12 -

¶79

CRL.RP No.100201/2019

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

¶82

(ii) The order dated 15.07.2019 in S.C.298/2015 passed by the learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, rejecting discharge application of the accused Nos.2 and 3 is set aside and the rejection order against accused No.1 stands affirmed.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

BSS/UN

Shri.Amit Iranna Shettasadavarti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Amit Iranna Shettasadavarti 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

Siddanath S/O Tammanna Padagannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudresh Mahadevappa Sarvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Parashuram @ Prashant Kallapa Kamble Vs State of Karnataka

Siddappa S/O. Chandappa Magadi Vs State of Karnataka

Mariyappa S/O Hucchappa Mudlapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Manjunath S/O Devappa Maygadaller (Chinchali) Vs the State of Karnataka