Bhimanna Honnoor Vs State by Police Inspector

SHRI VIDYA B.T., W/O VINAYA KUMAR HONNOOR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. NO.806, M.S.PALYA, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU CITY - 560 013.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M. A. VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.154/2022 AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.37159/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.323, 498-A R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT 1961 IN VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION CR.NO.154/2022.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶32

IN CRL.P NO. 2337/2023 BETWEEN:

¶33

VINAYA KUMAR HONNOOR S/O BHIMANNA HONNOR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO 197, 8^TH B MAIN ROAD, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU CITY.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY

¶38

BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶39

SHRI VIDYA B T W/O VINAYA KUMAR HONNOOR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O NO.806, M. S. PALYA, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENAGLURU CITY - 560 013.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M.A.VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.154/2022 AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.37159/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.323, 498-A R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT 1961 IN VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION CR.NO.154/2022.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶44

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

The Crl.P.No.2337/2023 is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.2842/2023 is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 5 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing the criminal proceedings in CC.No.37159/2022 registered in the Vidyaranyapura police station, Bengaluru in Crime No.154/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 489(A) r/w 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶47

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - state and learned counsel Sri. MA Vijay for respondent No.2.

¶48

It is the case of the prosecution that on the first information report (FIR) lodged by respondent No.2 on 13.07.2022. It is alleged by her that her marriage with accused No.1 i.e., petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.2337/2023 was held on 01.07.2021 in the house of her father. After marriage she

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶50

went to house of the petitioners i.e., matrimonial home. She is doctor by profession, the husband - accused No.1 said to be Assistant Engineer working in BBMP (deputed from KIADB). While she was residing in the matrimonial home the accused persons have started her harassing physically, mentally for last two months by demanding salary from her. Due to harassment she has intimated the same to her father and her father conveyed the meting of elders of both the family members and they have decided to have separate house for rent. Accordingly, they made a separate house, where the petitioner did not pay any amount, she herself has paid advance amount and rent amount for three months. During this time accused No.1 came and stayed with her and later he did not paid any rent and look after the family for happy marital life. When the same was intimated to other accused they have supported accused No.1 and they have instigated the accused No.1 for harassing her physically and mentally. It is also stated by her that she was assaulted by accused No.1 on 26.02.2022 by pulling her scalp hair and thrown out of the house by demanding for divorce. She went to the hospital and taken treatment. Subsequently, by this incident she thought of

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶52

committing suicide, but she was not succeed in committing suicide and lodged the complaint. The police after registration of FIR investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. During the stage of FIR the petitioners have approached this Court to withdraw the petitions and with a liberty to file a fresh petitions. Accordingly, they are before this Court.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the case of the respondents is totally false. There was ego clash between them, her salary was more than the salary of the accused No.1, she never stayed in the matrimonial home. Only to harass them the complaint came to be filed. Even though there was harassment on 26.02.2022 but the complaint came to be filed on 13.07.2022, so there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint. A false medical certificate is also obtained from the hospital where she is working. It is not a fit case for conducting trial and conducting trial is nothing but abuse of process. It is contended that now petitioner No.1 has already transferred to Dharwad where he is working in KIADB.

¶54

Per contra , learned HCGP objecting the contention and submits that there is a specific allegation against all the

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶57

accused persons. Though treatment was taken in February 2022 and medical certificate was obtained on July 2022 after lodging the complaint. The averments made in the statement of witnesses clearly attracts Sections 323, 489(A) r/w 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the matter required for trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶58

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also filed statement of objections and also contended that at the time of marriage they have received Rs.11,00,000/- by cash for the purpose of purchase of Golden ornaments by themselves. Though at the time of marriage no dowry was given but they have demanding now. There was continuous harassment made by all the accused persons. Accused No.4 who is un-married person is staying with his brother accused No.2, even accused also residing with them all together they have committed offence. Therefore, the matter require for trial. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶59

On careful reading of the FIR as well as the statement of witness shows that the marriage between accused

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶61

No.1 and respondent No.2 was held in the house of the father of respondent No.2 during the Co-vid pandemic lockdown. There is no specific allegation that payment of dowry at the time of the marriage has stated by the counsel for respondent No.2. Even there is no records to show the transaction of Rs.11,00,000/- by the respondent family to the accused for the purpose of purchasing any golden ornaments. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent that at the time of marriage there was dowry articles given, cannot be acceptable in order to attract Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, on perusal of FIR after the marriage respondent No.2 went to the matrimonial home at Vidyaranyapura where all the accused persons are residing together. Of course accused No.1 who is husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents-in-law, accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.2 and accused No.5 is brother of accused No.1. It is only stated that all the accused persons are instigated accused No.1 and thereby he said to be assaulted. Accused No.4 said to be resident of Koppal district that he may be visiting his brother house on some occasions that itself is not a ground to implicate petitioner No.4 as accused in this case. Accused No.5 said to be

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶64

software engineer and wife is not made as accused, he said to be instigated but there is no specific allegation. However, there is allegation against the parents of accused No.1, they said to be residing together even after a panchayath accused No.1 made separate house along with accused No.2 but he is never stayed in leading happy marital life, even he did not paid advance money nor monthly rent to the landlord, whereas respondent No.2 has paid advance money and rent to the landlord as per the papers recorded by the police. Even though accused No.1 said to be Government employee earning HRA but he was never chosen to pay rent that itself shows how much he had cruelty on his wife. When the matter was gone to the notice of his parents they could have advice him but they have supported him.

¶65

During the trial it is required to confirm the information filed by respondent No.2 in the cross-examination as per Section 145 I.P.C. This Court cannot conduct any trial for analyzing the entire documents mere to give findings on the merits of the case. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no material placed on record against accused Nos.4 and 5 for proceedings against them during the trial. Where as material is

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:5088 CRL.P No. 2842 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 2337 of 2023

¶68

placed on record to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for trial. Therefore, the petition filed by accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.2337/2023 is liable to be dismissed and another petition filed by accused Nos.2 to 5 to be allowed partly.

¶69

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. Crl.P.No.2337/2023 is dismissed;

¶72

ii. Crl.P.No.2842/2023 is allowed in part;

¶73

iii. The criminal proceedings against accused Nos.4 and 5 i.e., Sri. Ramesh Honnor and Sri. Jayaprakash Honnor in Crime No.154/2022 in CC.No.37159/2022 pending on the file of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 489(A) r/w 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered in Vidyaranyapura police station, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶74

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶75

PNV - List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 - CT:SK

Bhimanna Honnoor v. State by Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimanna Honnoor v. State by Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M. Maranna @ M Marappa Vs the Commissioner

Mallamma Vs Jayamma

Sri. B. a. Jayaram Vs Sri. B.A. Chermana

Sri Ramakrishna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Chandramma Vs Sri Krishnegowda

Smt Bhagyamma Vs Sri Nagaraju