Partly allowed

Devendra K C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024CRL.P/3281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and charge sheet in a matrimonial dispute alleging assault and cruelty by the husband and in-laws. The High Court found no 498A allegations from 2013 to 2021, quashed proceedings against the husband entirely, and struck off Sections 498A and 109 for the in-laws while directing them to face trial for remaining offences.

What the court decided

AI extract

Devendra K C Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3281 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DEVENDRA K.C. AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O CHUDAPPA GOWDA,

¶8

BHARATH KUMAR.K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O DEVENDRA,

¶9

PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT: KODLU VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGGA, KARNATAKA - 577 234.

¶10

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

JAYANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O DEVENDRA, KODLU VILLAGE, PRESENTLY R/AT 2^ND CROSS, B-BLOCK, GANDHI NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA - 577 201.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K B., ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AGUMBE PS POLICE STATION, THIRTHAHALLI CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.

¶17

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

SMT. B. N. NAVYA GOWDA W/O JAYANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, KODLU, UNTURUKATTE, KAIMARA, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 234,

¶19

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.34/1, CHIKKAHONNEHAHALLI EXTENSION, NEAR VIJAYA SCHOOL, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN - 573 202.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 27.12.2021 AS PER ANNEXURES A IN CR.NO.89/2021 FILED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.341, 504, 506, 323, 354, 498-A, 109, 34 OF IPC 1860, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND CJM COURT, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVMOGGA (ORDER SHEET IS NOT YET OPENED, ONLY RECEIVED FIR) AND COMPLAINT DATED 27.12.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.350/2022 registered by the Thirthahalli Police Station, Shivamogga in Crime No.89/2021 and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 323, 354, 498A, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 27.12.2021 alleging that she married accused No.3, the petitioner No.3 herein, in the year 2010. When she went to her parents house for the first delivery and came back in the year 2013, they have not allowed her inside the house and thrown out of the house. Hence, she was residing in her parents' house. Subsequently, she has filed petition for maintenance under the D.V. Act. The maintenance of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded and since three years,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶31

petitioner-accused No.3 has not paid the arrears of maintenance. Hence, on 27.12.2021, she herself along with her child and father came to the matrimonial home and stayed. Accused Nos.1 and 2 who are brother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant assaulted her and thrown out of the house by twisting the hand, abusing in filthy language and threatening her. Subsequently, the complaint came to be filed and the FIR has been registered and charge sheet has been filed, which is under challenge.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 for having assaulted the complainant on 27.12.2021 and the accused No.3 was not at all present who was an advocate practicing at Shivamogga. It is alleged in the charge sheet only that he has abetted accused No.1 and 2 for the offence. Absolutely, there is no ingredients to attract Section 498A of IPC and he also contended that the D.V. Act case also filed against the husband and parents-in-law, where the case has been dismissed against the parents-in-law and maintenance have been granted in favour of respondent No.2 as against her husband. This is pending before the Sessions Court in the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶34

appeal. The learned counsel also submitted that a divorce case is filed by him and restitution of conjugal rights case is filed by his wife which is pending before the Family Court, Hassan. Absolutely, there is no case for framing of charge. Hence, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings. The learned counsel further contended that there is no independent witnesses to the case, except the parents of the complainant.

¶35

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader

¶36

seriously objected the petition and contended that one Venkatesh was the independent witness other than the parents of the complainant. Accused No.3 is the husband who was harassing the complainant. Therefore, matter is required for framing of charge and face the trial. Accused No.3 has abetted the other accused to commit the offence. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seriously objected the petition and contended that the maintenance has not been paid properly, therefore, she has filed petitions before the Court and arrears also not properly paid by him. He has filed a case at Hassan even though he is residing at Thirthahalli

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶39

and practicing at Shivamogga. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶40

Having heard the arguments, on perusal of the records and on perusal of the entire complaint, which reveals, the marriage was held in the year 2010 and after the marriage, she went to her parental home for delivery and came back in June 2013, where the accused persons quarreled with her and sent her back again. Thereafter, the complainant did not chosen to file any complaint to the Police against any of the accused persons. However, in the year 2015, she has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also sought maintenance. The petition was tried by the Magistrate and it was partly allowed. Rs.10,000/awarded as maintenance to her and petition against the parents-in-law was dismissed. Now the appeal is pending before the Sessions Judge, Hassan. It is also an admitted fact that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights as per Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner-accused No.3 also said to be filed a case for divorce.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶43

On perusal of the D.V. Act case, there is no allegation under Section 498A of IPC for physical or mental harassment by the petitioner during the relevant gap between 2021 and 2013. In the meanwhile, there was pendency of cases against each other before the Family Court as well as the Magistrate which is in dispute. However, on 27.12.2021, the respondent No.2 came along with her father and child, entered the matrimonial home, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to be assaulted her, twisted her hand and said to be outraged the modesty, abused her and thrown out of the house which is revealed from the statement of the father, other neighbours and one Venkatesh who is an independent witness. From 2013 to 2021, there is no allegation of any demand of dowry or mental and physical harassment by accused No.3 or accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the case against the accused is dismissed by the Magistrate under the D.V. Act. Such being the case, the question of continuing the proceedings as against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A or 109 of IPC does not arise. However, on 27.12.2021, the accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the complainant and accused

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:10320 CRL.P No. 3281 of 2022

¶46

No.1 said to be filed complaint against respondent No.2 which is in Crime No.1/2022.

¶47

Considering the same, the accused Nos.1 and 2 required to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, they are not chargeable for the offence under Sections 498A or 109 of IPC against accused No.3. Considering the same, I proceed to pass following order:

¶48

10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part .

¶49

The petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 is

¶50

allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶51

However, the petition filed by accused No.1 and 2 is partly allowed.

¶52

The charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 109 of IPC is hereby quashed and for the remaining offences, they have to face the trial.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

GBB_List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25_CT:SK

Devendra K C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Devendra K C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Abdul Khalak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Govindaraju Vs Sri Prashanth Kumar C

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Naveen Kumar K Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajkumar Pari Vs State of Karnataka by

Nawaz Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka