Allowed

Smt Usha @ Usha v. State O F Karnataka by

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2024CRL.P/615/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition was filed by a petitioner to quash charges pending against her in a dowry and matrimonial dispute case. The court noted the medical report mentioned assault by the mother-in-law only, excluding the petitioner, and allowed the petition to quash proceedings against her.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner in the specified criminal case are quashed.

Smt Usha @ Usha Vs State O F Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29013 CRL.P No. 615 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 615 OF 2021 (482)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. USHA @ USHA W/O. CHANDRA SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O. #281/8E, 1^ST MAHADI, MAHAVEERA ROAD, CHAMARAJENDRA CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE - 577006

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S. G. RAJENDRA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.

¶15

SMT. YOGESHWARI K. H. W/O. MANJUNATHA I. V., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 827/1, NEAR DYVAGNA KALYANA, MANTHAPA P.B, DAVANAGERE 577006

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1, SRI. DHANUSH M., ADV. FOR R-2.)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:29013 CRL.P No. 615 of 2021

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.68/2019 OF WOMEN P.S., DAVANAGERE FILED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506,34,498A,504,355,323,354,114 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4,6 OF D.P ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA)

¶25

The petitioner happens to be the sister-in-law of second respondent – complainant.

¶26

The second respondent lodged a complaint on 18.07.2019 in which apart from making allegations against

¶27

her husband, she has also made an allegation that on 15.06.2019 she was assaulted and in this assault, the petitioner had also participated and she had, in fact, hit her with a chappal. Pursuant to the said complaint, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 355, 354, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:29013 CRL.P No. 615 of 2021

¶30

On 17.06.2019, the mother-in-law Smt.Gowramma had lodged a complaint against her daughter-in-law i.e., second respondent in respect of which the Police registered a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶31

It is, therefore, clear that immediately pursuant to the date of the incident i.e., on 15.06.2019 only the mother-in-law had lodged a complaint and not the daughter-in-law. In the MLC report, the statement of second respondent indicates that she informed the Doctors that she was assaulted with chappals and hand at her residence by her mother-in-law and in this MLC report the involvement of the petitioner is not forthcoming, though an allegation was made in the complaint. It may be noticed that the medical report is dated 15.06.2019. It is also to be noticed here that though the incident occurred on 15.06.2019, the complaint was lodged on 18.07.2019 i.e., nearly after a month.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:29013 CRL.P No. 615 of 2021

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.G.Rajendra also submits that this complaint was filed after the husband initiated proceedings for dissolution of marriage in M.C. No.222/2019 on 19.06.2019. It is, therefore, clear that the complaint has been lodged basically to get back at the husband and relatives because of the filing of the matrimonial case.

¶35

Be that as it may, since there is no allegation against the petitioner at that time the second respondent submitted herself to a medical examination and she only stated that she was assaulted by her mother-in-law, there is no justification to continue the proceedings as against the present petitioner is concerned. Petition is, therefore, allowed and the proceeding only insofar as the petitioner is concerned is quashed .

¶36

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶37

HNM,

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt Usha @ Usha v. State O F Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Usha @ Usha v. State O F Karnataka by

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

M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Arun Tom Vs State of Karnataka

Shri a C Kurian Vs the Deputy Commissioner

B Babulal Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Ravi Shetty Vs Sanjeeva K Poojary

Sri. Veeresh M Vs the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka