Allowed

C J Karigowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024CRL.P/2839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners (in-laws and brothers-in-law) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that allegations were tangential, based on dissatisfaction with assurances of financial aid, and lacked specific role compared to the husband.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.64/2020 arising out of FIR in Crime No.79/2019 of Tumkur Women Police Station.

C J Karigowda Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON'BLE JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2839 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

1 . C J KARIGOWDA S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED 68 YEARS R/A NO.18, II CROSS, VIVEKA NAGARA HASSAN,HASSAN TLAUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶9

2 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O C J KARIGOWDA AGED 61 YEARS R/A NO. 18, II CROSS VIVEKA NAGARA, HASSAN HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶10

3 . C K LOHIT S/O C J KARIGOWDA AGED 39 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOLDEN STREET, GOSFORD NSW-2250, AUSTRALIA

¶11

4 . C K MADHU S/O C J KARIGOWDA AGED 32 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

¶12

¶13

4457, 2^ND CROSS VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE NEAR KD CIRCLE, MYSORE-570 016.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND

¶16

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION TUMKUR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

2 . MRS. LAVANYA B P W/O PRADEEP C K AGED 34 YEARS SRI LAXMI NIVASA CHANDANA CROSS KUMMATTAYYA LAYOUT BANASHANKARI II STAGE TUMKUR-577 101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE C.C.NO.64/2020 ARISING OUT OF F.I.R. IN CR.NO.79/2019 OF TUMAKUR WOMEN POLICE STATION

¶21

¶22

FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TUMAKURU.

¶23

THIS CRL.P HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed by in-laws and brothers-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.64/2020 arising out of FIR in Crime No.79/2019 of Tumkur Police Station.

¶26

The facts leading to the case are as under: Respondent No.2/complainant’s marriage with

¶27

accused No.1 was solemnized on 4.3.2010. It is alleged that accused No.1 who is the son of accused Nos.1 and 2 was working at Dubai. Later, he shifted

¶28

¶29

to Qatar and respondent No.2 accompanied accused No.1. However, accused No.1 returned to India and as respondent No.2-complainant had conceived, went to her parental home.

¶30

Respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint on 20.7.2019 alleging that her husband and in-laws have ill-treated her and have demanded dowry. Respondent No.2 withdrew the complaint on 6.8.2019 on the ground that her husband has agreed to take care of respondent No.2 and her daughter and has assured that he will provide a separate residence. Petitioners 1 and 2, who are in-laws, assured respondent No.2-complainant that they would pay monthly Rs.20,000/-.

¶31

Within a span of a week, respondent No.2 lodged similar complaint which led to registration of FIR in Crime No.0079/2019 and the Investigating

¶32

¶33

Officer has filed the charge sheet. The sum and substance of the complaint is that Petitioner No.2 in 2010 used to ill-treat respondent No.2 on trivial issues and on the ground that respondent No.2 was not properly doing household work. Respondent No.2 has alleged that petitioner No.1/father-in-law has enquired with respondent No.2 in regard to sites owned by her father. She has also alleged that accused No.1/husband used to make repeated demands of dowry and her father has paid Rs.7,35,000/-. She has also alleged that while her in-laws were in Australia along with petitioner No.3, they requested respondent No.2 to move out of the house along with accused No.1. This is the sum and substance of the allegations in the complaint.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶35

¶36

6. Before I proceed further, it would be useful

¶37

for this Court to cull out the statements of petitioners 1 and 2 recorded in earlier complaint, which reads as under:

¶38

“1. � �ೆ ಕ��ೌಡ , S/O �ೇ� ಜವ�ೇ�ೌಡ 70 ವಷ� ಒಕ��ಗರು ವ�ವ�ಾಯ ��ೇಕನಗರ೧�ೆ ಮುಖ� ರ�ೆ" ೨�ೇ$ಾ%&ತುಮಕೂರು -9986175838.

¶39

2. )ಾಗ�ಮ* W/o � �ೆ ಕ��ೌಡ ೬೦ ವಷ� ಒಕ��ಗರು ವ�ವ�ಾಯ ��ೇಕನಗರ ೧�ೆ ಮುಖ� ರ�ೆ" ೨�ೇ$ಾ%&ತುಮಕೂರು

¶40

�ಾವ-ಗಳ/ 0ೕಲ�ಂಡ �3ಾಸದ�6 �ಾಸ�ಾ7ರು8ೆ"ೕ�ೆ . ನಮಗಳ �ರುದ9 ನಮ �ೊ�ೆ:ಾದ �ಾವಣ� <= ರವರು >ಾನ� ?ೆಚುAವ� B�ೕ& ಅDೕEಕ ರವ��ೆ FೕGರುವ ಅH�ಯನುI ಓK LMದು$ೊಂGರು8ೆ"ೕ�ೆ . ನಮ* Nದಲ�ೇ ಮಗ�ಾದ ಪ%KೕP �$ೆ ರವ�ೊಂK�ೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ಬನಶಂಕ� �ಾ� ಪ-ಟT�ಾUV ರವರ ಎರಡ�ೇ ಮಗ3ಾದ �ಾವಣ� ಅವ�ೊಂK�ೆ ಸು>ಾರು 9 ವಷ�ಗಳ XಂYೆ ಮದು�ೆ >ಾGದYೆZೕವ- . ಇವ��ೆ ಆರು ವಷ�ದ ಒಬ]ಳ/ ಮಗMರು8ಾ"3ೆ , ಸಂ�ಾರದ �^ಾರದ�6 �ೈಮನಸು ಉಂbಾ7 ನಮ* �ೊ�ೆ ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* ಮಗ ಈ�ೆd ಸು>ಾರು ಎರಡು ವಷ�ಗMಂದಲೂ eೇ�ೆeೇ�ೆ ಇರು8ಾ"�ೆ _._ ಇನುI ಮುಂYೆ �ಾವನಮ* ಮಗ �ೊ�ೆ ^ೆ�ಾI7 ಸಂ�ಾರ >ಾG$ೊಂಡು ?ೋಗಲು ನಮ*Yೇನೂ ಅಭ�ಂತರ�ಲ6 _._ ಇನುI _15_ Kವಸದ ಒಳ�ಾ7 ಸಂ�ಾರ$ೆ� ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟT �ಾಮ7%ಗಳ/ ?ಾಗೂ �ೇಷh ವ�ವ�ೆi >ಾG ತನI ಮಗ _-_ �ೊ�ೆ ಮಗುವನುI ಕ�ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ?ೋ7 ಸಂ�ಾರ ನjೆಸುವ-ದರ�6 ನಮ* ಅಭ�ಂತರ�ೇನೂ ಇರುವ-Kಲ6 _._ ?ಾಗೂ ಆ�"ಯ)ಾಗ$ೆ� ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟTಂ8ೆ ಮಕ�M�ೆ ಸಮ�ಾ7ಹಂl$ೆ >ಾಡು8ೆ"ೕ�ೆ _._ ಇನುIಮುಂYೆ ನಮ* �ೊ�ೆ Nಮ*ಗM�ೆ :ಾವ-Yೇ 8ೊಂದ�ೆ:ಾಗದಂ8ೆ ನಮ* ಮಗF�ೆ Lಳ/ವM$ೆ FೕG ಸಂ�ಾರ ನjೆ�$ೊಂಡು ?ೋಗಲು LM�ರು8ೆ"ೕ�ೆ _._ ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* �ೊ�ೆ�ೆ �ೆರ�ಾ7 Fಲು6ವ ಜ�ಾeಾZ� ನಮ*Yಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ ?ಾಗೂ ಜನವ� _2020_ �ಂದ ನಮ* �ೊ�ೆ �ಾವಣ� _BP_ ರವರ ಅ$ೌಂ� 20000/- �ಾ�ರ ?ಾಕುವ ಜ�ಾeಾZ� ನಮ*Yಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ , ?ಾಗೂ ನmಮ ಮಗ $ೆಲಸ$ೆ� ?ೋ7 ?ೆಂಡL ಮಗು��ೆ 8ೊಂದ�ೆ >ಾಡದಂ8ೆ

¶41

¶42

Lಳ/ವM$ೆ ?ೇಳ/ವ ಜ�ಾeಾZ� ನಮYಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ 0ೕಲ�ಂಡ Fಬಂಧ�ೆಗM�ೆ ತ=nದ�ೆ ನಮಗಳ�ರುದ9$ಾನೂನು �ೕತ� ಕ%ಮಜರು7ಸಬಹುದು ?ಾಗೂ 2 �ಾ%ಂ lನIದಒಡ�ೆಗಳನುI $ೊGಸುವಜ�ಾeಾZ�ಇರು8ೆ" .”

¶43

7. It would be also useful to cull out the

¶44

statements of petitioner No.4 recorded on 2.8.2019,

¶45

which reads as under:

¶46

“ಮಧು�$ೆ ?ೋಂ ಕ��ೌಡ��ೆ , 32 ವಷ� , ಒಕ��ಗರು , ಅ��ೆTಂ�B%pೆಸq , $ೊbಾTರ^ೌr , sಾ6�ನಂಬq 101, t%:ಾಅsಾ m ÉäðA�ಅಬ]ಕ� ನಗರ , $ೊbಾTರ , ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀ Ä 575006, ph no 9731283249

¶47

�ಾನು 0ೕಲ�ಂಡ �3ಾಸದ�6 �ಾಸ�ಾ7ರು8ೆ"ೕ�ೆ . ನನI �ರುದ9 ನಮ* ಅL"�ೆ :ಾದ �ಾವಣ� <= ರವರು >ಾನ� ?ೆಚುAವ� B�ೕ& ವ�uಾvD$ಾ�ಗM�ೆ FೕGರುವಅH�ಯನುI ಓKLMದು$ೊಂGರು8ೆ"ೕ�ೆ . ನಮ* ಅಣwF�ೆ ಈ�ೆd ಸು>ಾರು 9 ವಷ�ಗಳ XಂYೆ �ಾವಣ� <= ರವ�ೊಂK�ೆ ಮದು�ೆ >ಾGದುZ ಇವ��ೆ ಒಂದು ?ೆಣುw ಮಗು �ರುತ"Yೆ ಸಂ�ಾರದ �^ಾರದ�6 �ೈಮನಸು` ಉಂbಾ7 ಎರಡು ವಷ�Kಂದ eೇ�ೆ eೇ�ೆ ಇದುZ ಇನುI 15 Kವಸದ�6 ತುಮಕೂ�ನ ಅಮರ �ೊ�ೕL ನಗರದ�6 ಮ�ೆ >ಾG ಅL"�ೆ ಮಗುವನುI ಕ�ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ?ೋ7 ಸಂ�ಾರದ ಸಂಪxಣ� ಜ�ಾeಾZ� ವX�$ೊಂಡು ಅ £ÉÆåÃ ನ��ಾ7 ಸಂ�ಾರ >ಾG�$ೊಡುವ-Yಾ7 ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* ತಂYೆ 8ಾyಯ ಆ�"ಯ�6 ಎಲ6�ಗೂ ಸಮ)ಾಗ >ಾಡುವ-Yಾ7 ?ಾಗೂ ಜನವ� 2020 �ಂದ ನಮ* ಅL"�ೆಯ ಅ$ೌಂz�ೆ 20 �ಾ�ರ ರೂ ?ಾrಸುವ-Yಾ7 ನಮ* ತಂYೆ - 8ಾy ?ಾಗೂ �ಾನು ಒ=n�ೆ FೕGರು8ೆ"ೕ�ೆ ?ಾಗೂ ನಮ* ಅL"�ೆಯ ಸಂ�ಾರದ�6 �ಾವ- )ಾ7:ಾ7 8ೊಂದ�ೆ FೕGದ�ೆ ನನI �ರು{ಧ $ಾನೂನು �ೕತ� ಕ%ಮ ಜರು7ಸಬಹುYಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ ?ಾಗೂ ಎರಡು ನೂರು �ಾ%ಮಗಳ ಬ�ೆd ನಮ* ತಂYೆ - 8ಾyನಮ*ಣwಜ�ಾeಾZ�:ಾ7ರುತ"Yೆ.”

¶48

¶49

If the charge sheet materials along with the statements recorded in the previous complaint are meticulously examined, it is noted that accused No.1 who is the husband of respondent No.2, is primarily implicated for the alleged offence as per the complaint. On reading the statements of the in-laws recorded in the earlier complaint, it can be easily gathered that respondent No.2, on the contrary, is expecting financial assistance from the in-laws. Moreover, it is clearly evident that first complaint filed by respondent No.2 was withdrawn upon assurance of separate residence and financial assistance, which were allegedly agreed to be paid by petitioners 1 and 2.

¶50

9. Therefore, this Court is more than satisfied

¶51

that filing of the present complaint seems to stem from dissatisfaction with the fulfillment of these assurances rather than any specific criminal conduct

¶52

¶53

attributed to present petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5. On meticulous examination of the allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet materials, it emerges that involvement of accused Nos.2 to 5 in the alleged offences remains tangential at best. While they have assured in relation to request for relocation and financial assistance, the core allegations of dowry demands and ill-treatment are squarely directed against accused No.1. Further more, the sequence of events, including the withdrawal of first complaint and filing of second complaint underscores the nuanced nature of the dispute. The withdrawal of first complaint upon an assurance of separate residence and financial assistance, followed by its re-filing due to perceived non-compliance reflects dissatisfaction of a daughter-in-law as against petitioners 1 and 2/in-laws.

¶54

¶55

The Apex Court in the case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim .vs. State of U.P. and others¹ has held that the Courts under Section 482 have to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely when proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive. The Supreme Court, along with numerous High Courts, in plethora of judgments, have consistently upheld the principle that vague and general allegations in cases involving Section 498A of the IPC should not lead to the inclusion of in-laws in criminal trials without specific and credible allegations. This legal precedent recognizes the potential misuse of laws aimed at preventing cruelty against women in matrimonial relationships. This temporal aspect is significant, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for a specific role to be attributed to in-laws in cases of alleged harassment. In situations where the

¶56

1 2023 SCC Online SC 947

¶57

¶58

wife and in-laws of husband have lived together for an extremely brief period, the rationale for implicating the in-laws in criminal proceedings becomes dubious. The Court's stance on discouraging criminal trials based on vague accusations aligns with the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the relatives of the husband should not undergo the tribulations of a criminal trial unless a specific role in the alleged offenses is attributed to them. Therefore, the separation of the complainant from her in-laws, coupled with the absence of specific and credible allegations against them, forms a compelling case for quashing of criminal proceedings.

¶59

Moreover, considering the circumstances whereby petitioner No.3 previously resided in Bangalore and subsequently relocated to Australia with his family in 2013, and petitioner No.4, who entered into marriage in 2017, currently resides in

¶60

¶61

Mysore, it is evident that neither of the petitioners have cohabitated with the complainant. Consequently, petitioners 3 and 4, who are the complainant's brother-in-laws, have been implicated in the present case solely based on unsubstantiated allegations without any specific accusations of harassment attributed towards them. Given these circumstances, this Court finds it equitable to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶62

In the light of the discussions made supra,

¶63

this Court is of the opinion that accused Nos.2 to 5 find themselves entangled in a legal dispute primarily stemming from allegations levied against accused No.1, husband of respondent No.2. The crux of the matter revolves around dowry demand and allegations of ill-treatment predominately attributed to accused No.1. Given the circumstances and for want of prima facie materials against accused Nos.2 to 5, it is just

¶64

¶65

and equitable to invoke inherent powers vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings only against the petitioners to prevent misuse of legal process against individuals who are not substantially implicated in the alleged offences.

¶66

For the foregoing reasons, I pass the

¶67

following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.64/2020 arising out of FIR in Crime No.79/2019 of Tumkur Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending on the file of 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur, are hereby quashed.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

*alb/-

C J Karigowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C J Karigowda 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

Joseph C Vs the Director (a and Hr)

Sri Chaluvaraju C Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Divya B Vs Beml Limited

Sri. Bhavanishankara. a Vs State of Karnataka

K Gunasagar Vs Indian Bank

G S Siddalingappa Vs the State of Karnataka