Partly allowed

Vinod v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2024CRL.P/3701/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife lodged complaint alleging dowry harassment against husband's family. Court found allegations against petitioners No.2 to 5 vague and lacking specific roles; proceedings continued only against petitioner No.1 (husband). Proceedings against petitioner No.2 abated due to death; proceedings against petitioners No.3 to 5 were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in crime No.74/2016 against petitioners No.3 to 5 quashed; proceedings continue against petitioner No.1; abated for petitioner No.2 (deceased).

Vinod Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3701 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VINOD, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAPPA, R/AT NO.2, S.J.P LAYOUT, NAGONDANAHALLI COLONEY, WHITE FIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066.

¶8

SRI. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, DODDANAHALI VILLAGE, SHAPURA POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶9

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. CHOWDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O GOVINDAPPA, DODDANAHALI VILLAGE, SHAPURA POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶11

MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATHA B.H., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, BODHANAHOSAHALLI,

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶13

ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK,

¶14

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶15

SHEKARAPPA,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O OBHANNA, MARUTHI LAYOUT, MALUR, KOLAR - 563 160.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.N. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VIRTHUR POLICE, VIRTHUR, BANGALORE - 560 087.

¶21

SHOBA @ PALLAVI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR PALYA, GUNJUR POST, VIRTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 087.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.C. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.74/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The captioned petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in crime No.74/2016 pending on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶30

2. Facts leading to the case as under:

¶31

The marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2/Complainant was solemnised on 25.09.2015. Respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police station, alleging that the petitioners have harassed and tortured her and have also demanded dowry. Respondent No.2 has also contended that petitioners No.1 to 3 were demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase a car and as respondent No.2 failed to meet the demands of the petitioners, it is alleged

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶34

in the complaint that she was thrown out of the marital home on 15.03.2016. The present complaint was lodged on 24.03.2016 against the petitioners.

¶35

Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the in-laws of respondent No.2 and respondents No.4 and 5 are the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1.

¶36

On reading the complaint, this Court is more than satisfied that no case is made out insofar as petitioners No.2 to 5 are concerned. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the relevant paragraph of the complaint. The same is culled out as under:

¶37

"ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 21 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ EzÉÃ ZÀ£Àß¸ÀAzÀæzÀ £ÁUÉÆAqÀºÀ½î PÁˉÉÆÃ¤AiÀÄ°è ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÆªÀvÀÄÛ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝªÀÅ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ºÀÄlÆÖgÁzÀ PÉÆÃˉÁgÀ fˉÉèAiÀÄ zÉÆqÀØºÀ½îAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÁ £ÁªÀÅ DUÁUÀ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄwÛzÉÝªÀÅ."

¶38

On reading the entire allegations made in the complaint, even if these allegations are accepted in its entirety, this Court is of the view that no case is made out against petitioners No.2 to 5. If respondent

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶41

No.2/complainant as per her own version of the complaint, post solemnization of marriage has spent 21 days at her parental house with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and thereafter they have moved to a rented house in Bangalore, the complaint lodged against the in-laws and relatives prima facie appears to lack bona fides. Even if

¶42

the entire allegations are accepted in its entirety, no offence is made out against petitioners No.2 to 5. If the length of marital life spent by respondent No.2 is looked into, the prosecution can continue only against petitioner No.1/Husband, as it is borne out from the allegations in the complaint that the in-laws and other relatives had no access to petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant. It is also borne out from the records that petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 are residents of Kolar, while petitioner No.4 is found to be residing in Bangalore.

¶43

The Supreme Court, along with numerous High Courts, in plethora of judgments, has consistently upheld the principle that vague and general allegations in cases

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶45

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 wife and family of husband have lived together for an extremely brief period, the rationale for implicating the inlaws in criminal proceedings becomes dubious. The court's stance on discouraging criminal trials based on vague accusations aligns with the circumstances of this case.

¶46

In light of this backdrop, considering the specific case at hand, where the complainant-wife lived in parental house for only 21 days and subsequently shifted to a rented house in Bangalore, it becomes imperative to analyze the relevance of harassment allegations against the in-laws. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶49

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.

¶50

In the light of discussion made supra, if the criminal prosecution is allowed to continue against petitioners No.2 to 5, the same would amount to abuse of process. On these set of allegations, the criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to proceed against petitioners No.2 to 5. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is no more. Therefore, the proceedings stand abated insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned.

¶51

In the light of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:569 CRL.P No. 3701 of 2017

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The criminal petition is allowed-in-part.

¶55

ii. The criminal proceedings pending in crime No.74/2016 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, insofar petitioners No.3 to 5 stands quashed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT:SNN

Vinod v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jnanananda S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chaitanya R M Vs Karnataka Legislatie Aseembly Secreariat

Dr. H Shivananda Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Latha Gothi Vs State by Siddapura Police

Sri H R Nagaraj Vs the State by

Sri Sham Shet Vs Smt Amita Shet