Partly allowed

Sri Manoj Pai S/O. Sri. B. H. Gurudatt v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024CRL.P/100644/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings in a dowry harassment case only against the accused mother due to lack of specific allegations, while maintaining proceedings against the husband. The court relied on the principle that general omnibus allegations do not warrant prosecution for other accused.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 3163/2021 solely against petitioner No. 2 (Accused No. 2) while allowing proceedings against petitioner No. 1 to continue.

Sri Manoj Pai S/O. Sri. B. H. Gurudatt Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100644 OF 2022 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANOJ PAI

¶9

S/O. SRI. B. H. GURUDATT, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.17, FIRST CROSS, HENNURBANDE, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043.

¶10

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. SHANTA PAI W/O. SRI. B. H. GURUDATT, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O. INDRAPRASTHA, CHILIMBI, II CROSS, LADY HILL, MANGALURU-575006.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S. P. KULKARNI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BASAVANA GOUD T, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAHILA POLICE STATION, HUBLI-DHARWAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶17

NOW R/BY. STATE P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, DHARWAD-580008.

¶18

SMT. SHASHIKALA @ PANKAJA W/O. MANOJ PAI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT KALIDASA NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PARASHURAM L. SAJJANAR, ADV. FOR SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CC NO.3163/2021 (WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.68/2020) ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBLI AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.3163/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBLI, FILED U/S. 498(A), 323, 504 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC A/W SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE APART FROM BEING ABUSED OF PROCESS OF COURT.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, Sri.Parashuram L. Sajjanar, learned counsel for de-facto complainant and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State.

¶26

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.3163/2021 on the file of learned III Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

¶27

The brief facts of the de-facto complainant are as under:

¶28

On 19.12.2020, the complainant lodged a complaint to the respondent – Police alleging that her marriage solemnized with accused No.1 on 26.01.2020. At the time of marriage, her parents gave 10 tholas of gold and cash of Rs.10,00,000/- to accused No.1. After the marriage, their relationship was cordial for couple of months. Thereafter, dispute arose between accused No.1 and de-facto complainant and hence, accused No.1 left the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, i.e., on 12.11.2020 accused Nos.1 and 2 abused the de-facto

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶30

complainant, made criminal intimidation and also harassed her to bring additional dowry from her parental house and they also evicted her from matrimonial house. Hence, she lodged the complaint and this led to registration of FIR and investigation.

¶31

Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings.

¶32

Learned Senior counsel contended that the allegations made in the FIR, complaint and column No.17 of charge sheet, appears to be general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. Further, the de-facto complainant herself is not residing with accused No.1 and there is matrimonial dispute pending between accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant. Hence, as a counter blast, the de-facto complainant lodged this case. Thus, the counsel prayed to allow the petition.

¶33

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are prima facie allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2, they harassed the defacto complainant physically and mentally in order to bring more dowry from her parental house and in this regard, they abused her, made criminal intimidation to eliminate her and hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶35

Perused the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet, took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons.

¶36

Perused the complaint, FIR and contents of the charge sheet, wherein, it is alleged that the de-facto complainant was thrown out from her matrimonial house in the month of December, 2020 and accused No.1 also filed M.C. petition before the jurisdictional Court.

¶37

From the perusal of the material available on record, there is prima facie allegation against accused No.1 only. There are some general and omnibus allegation against accused No.2, who is none other than the mother of accused No.1, aged about 76 years. In the complaint or charge sheet, there is no specific allegation made against accused No.2, as to how and in what manner, she subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically and also demanded to bring money from her parental house.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶40

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶41

Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of

¶42

Bihar and others¹ at para 18 has held as under:

¶43

“18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”

¶44

1 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶46

In the absence of any material that accused No.2 has subjected de-facto complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically and also there was demand to bring money from her parental home, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences, particularly against accused No.2 is without any substance.

¶47

In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of criminal proceedings as against accused No.2 will be an abuse of process of law. However, there is prima facie material against accused No.1. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The criminal petition is partly allowed.

¶50

The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.3163/2021 on the file of learned III Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are quashed only insofar as petitioner No.2 – accused No.2 is concerned.

¶51

The observations made in this order shall not come in the way of Trial Court while disposing the matter pending before it.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9182 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2022

¶54

All contentions are left open.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Rsh/ct-an LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32