Sri. Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

S/O LATE A SEETHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 8, PANCHAMUKI BADAVANE, 35TH BMTC DEPOT ROAD, KANNALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560091

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶30

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.7/2023, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 304B, 498A AND 34 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL IS PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4

¶34

have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a

¶35

prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against

¶36

them in SC.No.7/2023 for the offences punishable under

¶37

Sections 304B, 498A and Section 34 of IPC r/w Sections 3

¶38

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25163 CRL.P No. 4169 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ('DP Act' for short) and also quash the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.102/2022 and the final report for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and Section 34 of IPC.

¶41

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that accused Nos.2 to 4 are the brother, mother and sister of accused No.1. The marriage of accused No.1 and deceased Shilpa, the daughter of respondent No.2 was celebrated on 05.09.2018. Unfortunately, she committed suicide. After few days of the marriage, she was not residing with the petitioners. After her death, a false complaint is filed. Prior to the death of deceased Shilpa, there were no allegations against the petitioners. There was no desertion by accused No.1 and it was a case of deceased voluntarily staying away from him. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are living separately from accused No.1 and deceased Shilpa. Since accused No.1 is working in Dubai, he wanted to take deceased with him, but she refused to

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25163 CRL.P No. 4169 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

accompany him. Accused No.1 has spent more than Rs.40 lakhs on deceased. At the time of marriage, no dowry was taken.

¶45

2.1 At the time of marriage jewels were given to deceased Shilpa and marriage expenses were also borne by accused No.1. Though accused No.1 is well of and getting income from several sources, for silly reasons, deceased Shilpa used to fight with him. Respondent No.2

¶46

and deceased Shilpa were demanding that property should be registered in her name. The deceased Shilpa has not left behind any death note blaming accused persons. As per the charge sheet, deceased took away all her belongings, including the jewels given by accused No.1 and cash of Rs.1,22,000/-. There is no evidence to connect the petitioners to the alleged crime. Only to coerce accused No.1, they have been implicated and hence, the petition.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25163 CRL.P No. 4169 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In support of his arguments, learned counsel

¶50

for petitioners has relied upon the decision in Durga Prasad and Anr. Vs. The State of M.P. ( Durga Prasad )¹ .

¶51

On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent State would submit that complainant is having three daughters. His 3^rd daughter Shilpa was given in marriage to accused No.1. A gold chain, bracelet and finger ring were given to accused No.1 and ornaments weighing 50 gms and clothes were

¶52

given to the bride. However, after the marriage, she was harassed and ill treated for additional dowry. For sometime, deceased Shilpa stayed in Muscat. There also

¶53

the harassment did not stop. About two years prior to the filing of the complaint, all the accused persons tried to kill Shilpa and a complaint was given to Wilson Garden Police. After the said police advised, accused person did not take Shilpa with them and left her in her parental home.

¶54

1 Crl.A.No.1081/2010 (SLP(Crl)No.5450/2009 Dt:14.05.20210)

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25163 CRL.P No. 4169 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

During this period, she was carrying. After the delivery, accused No.1 used to abuse her over phone. He was harassing Shilpa at the instance of remaining accused persons. They wanted property of complainant to be registered in her name. At the time of marriage, Rs.4 lakhs were given, but accused persons were not satisfied. On 08.03.2022, accused No.1 came to the house of complainant at 6.00 a.m. and stayed till evening. At 9.50 p.m. Shilpa committed suicide. When she was taken to the hospital, Doctors declared her as brought dead. On account of the harassment meted out by the accused persons, Shilpa committed suicide and hence, the complaint. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed, which makes out a prima facie case. Matter requires trial to establish the allegations and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶58

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25163 CRL.P No. 4169 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

The petitioners who are the brother, mother

¶62

and sister of accused No.1 are seeking quashing of criminal proceeding initiated against them contending that after the marriage deceased never stayed with petitioners. She stayed with accused No.1 only for a period of 11 months, out of which majority of the time they stayed at Muscat. After deceased became pregnant, she went to matrimonial home for delivery. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that deceased had pledged gold ornaments with Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank, on two different dates, which fact is forthcoming from page No.33 of the charge sheet. Except the omnibus allegations made against the petitioners, there are no material, including the eye witnesses to speak about the alleged harassment. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶63

Undisputedly, when the marriage of deceased and accused No.1 took place, he was working at Muscat.

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25163 CRL.P No. 4169 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

After the marriage, they stay together at Muscat. After she became pregnant, she went to her parental home for delivery. While staying there, she committed suicide. The statement of the witnesses revealed that accused No.1

¶67

was visiting the deceased and the child at her parental home. It is alleged that on the previous day also, accused No.1 visited the deceased. It appears there was demand by the deceased to set up a separate house. Though it is stated that they had some talk, the witness have not stated what exactly transpired between them.

¶68

From the entire charge sheet it is evident that

¶69

petitioners never stayed with the deceased. Except the omnibus allegations that petitioners were harassing the deceased, there are no specific instances. Deceased had pledged her ornaments and it appears she was not able to release them. Anyhow, except the omnibus allegations made against the petitioners, there is no material to connect them with the cause of deceased committing suicide. Consequently, continuation of the criminal

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:25163 CRL.P No. 4169 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed and accordingly the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶76

(ii) The entire proceedings in S.C.No.7/2023 on the file of VIII Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed, as against the petitioner/accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶77

(iv) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.

¶78

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶79

RR

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri. Srinivasa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Srinivasa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Udaya Kumar @ Udaya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Venkataraman Subramanian Vs State of Karnataka

Nanjegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srihari Varanasi Vs State of Karnataka

Sharath Kumar G.C @ Bhujangaradya Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Logesh @ Lokesh Selvaraj @ K S Lokesh (Advocate) Vs the State of Karnataka