Allowed

Smt. Mallamma W/O Shivappa Tankedar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024CRL.P/101732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother-in-law sought quashing of dowry-harassment proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506/34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found no specific allegations against her, no averment she resided with the couple, only hearsay witnesses, and quashed proceedings against her.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C. No.1418/2024 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad quashed.

Smt. Mallamma W/O Shivappa Tankedar Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101732 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA TANKEDAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: AT PO YALAGOD, TQ: YADRAVI, DIST: KALABURGI – 585325.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (HD CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD) R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD 580011.

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶14

SMT. REKHA W/O. RAMESH TANKEDAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: SHRI GURU KRUPA, 4/4, 2^ND MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, KABADI LAYOUT, NARAYANAPURA, DHARWAD – 580001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;

¶18

SRI. ANAND BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR, CHARGE SHEET, ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1418/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II, DHARWAD, IN CONNECTION WITH HD CITY WOMEN P.S. CRIME NO.27/2023, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED BY ALLOWING THE PETITION.

¶20

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

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the complaint, FIR, charge-sheet, entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1418/2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad.

¶25

Respondent No.2 filed a complaint and

¶26

the same came to be registered against this petitioner/accused No.2 and her son accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short). The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶28

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Based on the charge-sheet material, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered a criminal case and it is pending in C.C. No.1418/2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad. The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of the said criminal case.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/accused No.2 is residing in Yalagod village at Kalburagi district and accused No.1 and his wife/respondent No.2 are residing in Dharwad. False allegations are made against the petitioner. The only allegation made

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶32

against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that she was abetting accused No.1 to abuse and assault respondent No.2. He contends that her are no witnesses cited in the charge-sheet who are neighbours of accused no.1 and Respondent no.2. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are residing together at Dharwad. All the charge-sheet witnesses are her relatives, who are residents of Alagur village in Devara Hipparagi taluk, Vijayapura district i.e., the parents place of respondent No.2. On these grounds, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner is the mother-inlaw of respondent No.2 and on perusal of the charge-sheet material, she was supporting her son/accused No.1 and abetting him to abuse and assault respondent No.2.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.2

¶36

would contend that there are specific allegations against the petitioner/accused No.2 and it is a case of trial and therefore prays to dismiss the petition.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel, the

¶38

Court has perused the charge-sheet material.

¶39

Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint with regard to the incident dated 12.04.2023 which took place in her house at Narayanapura, Dharwad. There is an allegation of assault on her by her husband causing injuries and she took treatment for the injuries in the District Hospital, Dharwad and the wound certificate indicate that she has sustained one abrasion and two contusions. The address of this petitioner/accused No.2 as shown in the charge-sheet is Yelgod village of Yadravi taluk, Kalburagi district. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶41

available a copy of the Aadhar card wherein the residence of the petitioner is shown as Jeewargi, Yelagod, Kalaburagi. On perusal of the averments of the complaint, there are no averments that this petitioner/accused No.2 was residing with respondent No.2 and her husband-accused No.1 at Narayanapura, Dharwad. The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 has taken place on 13.04.2014 at Sindagi. The averments made in the complaint indicate that this petitioner

¶42

used to abuse respondent No.2 and used to instigate accused No.1 to abuse and assault her. At what point of time the said act has been done by this petitioner is not stated in the complaint. It is also stated in the complaint that this petitioner was residing with respondent No.2 and accused No.1 at Narayanapura, Dharwad. There is no allegation of demand of dowry by this petitioner/accused No.2 or assault by this petitioner to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶44

and her husband-accused No.1 are residing at Narayanapura, Dharwad and there are no

¶45

eyewitnesses cited in the charge-sheet who are the neighbours of respondent No.2 and her husbandaccused No.1. CWs.4 to 6 are the mother, brother and brother’s wife of respondent No.2 and CW-7 is

¶46

the resident of Alagur village in Devara Hipparagi taluk. CWs.4 to 7 are not residing with respondent No.2 and her husband at Narayanapura, Dharwad and they are all hearsay witnesses. Therefore, on

¶47

perusal of the entire averments of the complaint and further statement of respondent No.2, it is clear that as there was quarrel between herself and her husband which had taken place on 12.04.2023, a complaint has been filed including the name of this petitioner/accused No.2. There are no specific allegations made against this petitioner/accused No.2. Therefore, the

¶48

proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C. No.1418/2024 requires to be quashed.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11046 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2024

¶50

In the result, the following

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.

¶53

No.1418/2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad are hereby quashed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

kmv,RKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Smt. Mallamma W/O Shivappa Tankedar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mallamma W/O Shivappa Tankedar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar S/O. Malleshappa Vakkund Vs the M D Nwkrtc, Gokul Road

Smt Latha Angadi W/O Manojkumar Angadi Vs M/S L G Technologies

Managing Director, Nwkrtc, Vs Yallappa S/O Galeppa Katti

Shantanahalli Kodadappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahmeraj S/O Hasankhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O. Hanumantappa Hedachi Vs the State of Karnataka