Allowed

Pratibha D/O. Veerayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024CRL.P/102764/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench quashed the FIR and complaint against Petitioner-Accused No. 3 in a 498A case. The court found no specific allegations of cruelty or dowry demands against her, treating the charges as general omnibus allegations akin to those quashed against other co-accused.

What did the court decide?

FIR and complaint in Crime No.193/2023 insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused No.3 are quashed.

Pratibha D/O. Veerayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18206 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102764 OF 2023

¶8

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRATIBHA D/O. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. NILOGIPUR VILLAGE, POST. BOCHENHALLI, TQ. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583226.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. SARVAMANGAL CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR SRI. M. R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE STATION), R/BY. ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶15

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Dharwad.

¶16

SMT. SANGEETA W/O. VEERAYYA @ IRAYYA CHOUKIMATH, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HAANUR VILLAGE, RANEBENNUR, TQ. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581113.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE CRIME NO.0193/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM RANEBENNUR AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO-3 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 498A, 504, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18206 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2023

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶25

Petitioner-accused No.3 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.193/2023 of Ranebennur Rural Police pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Ranebennur.

¶26

2. The brief facts of the prosecution are as under:-

¶27

The second respondent/defacto complainant-wife of accused No.1 lodged the first information on 07.09.2023 alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 5 are her in-laws. At the time of the marriage, her parents had given dowry to the accused in the form of cash and jewelry etc. The relationship of accused No.1 and the first informant were cordial for couple of months and thereafter, accused persons started to harass the first informant both physically and mentally and subjected her to cruelty and also demanded her to bring additional dowry from her parental house. On 02.09.2023, the petitioners/accused

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18206 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2023

¶29

forced the second respondent to leave the matrimonial home. They assaulted her physically and intentionally insulted her. Hence, she lodged the complaint before the respondent/police. This led to registration of FIR and investigation.

¶30

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶31

HCGP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the complaint, FIR and other material available on record.

¶32

4. The defacto complainant has made specific allegations that she was thrown out from the matrimonial home in the month of September 2023. On 02.09.2023, accused Nos.1 to 5 picked up quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language, assaulted her and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. As per the statement of the defacto complainant, the incident took place on 02.09.2023 and she reported the same to the jurisdictional police on 07.09.2023. From the perusal of complaint & FIR, it shows that defacto complainant has made certain allegations against accused No.1 with regard to not providing her food, shelter and clothes etc. Except these statements, there are general and omnibus allegations against petitioner/Accused No.3. There is no specific allegation against petitioner/accused No.3 as to how and in what manner,

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18206 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2023

¶34

accused No.3 subjected the first informant to cruelty both physically and mentally and also as to how she demanded her to bring money from the parental house.

¶35

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF A.P. v. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO reported in (2008) 15

¶36

SCC 582 , at para 30 has held as follows:

¶37

"30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."

¶38

6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v . STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , at para 18 has held as follows:

¶39

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18206 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2023

¶41

of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

¶42

7. In the absence of any materials to show that the petitioner-accused No.3 has subjected the defact complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically and also that there was demand made by petitioner/accused No.3 to bring money from her parental home, the allegation made against petitioner/accused No.3 is without any substance. Even otherwise, the incident took place on 02.09.2023 and the FIR was lodged on 07.09.2023 without offering any plausible explanation.

¶43

8. Admittedly, the case against accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 was quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.102835/2023. The allegation made against accused No.3 would also stand on the same footing as that of accused Nos.2, 4 & 5.

¶44

9. In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner-accused No.3 would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18206 CRL.P No. 102764 of 2023

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. Criminal petition is allowed .

¶49

ii. The FIR and complaint in Crime No.193 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr Dn) and CJM Court, Ranebennur, registered by Ranebennur Rural police station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶50

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶51

SMM/JTR ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Pratibha D/O. Veerayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratibha D/O. Veerayya Hiremath 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

Narsappa and Anr. Vs the State

Prabhugouda Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Kuberappa S/O Dasappa Gollar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Husenbasha S/O Mabu Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

T S Dharanendra Kumar @ Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka by

Laxman Vs the State