Andanaiah K Vs the State by Malavalli Town Police Station

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9193 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7049 OF 2021

¶8

IN CRL.P No. 9193/2021:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ANDANAIAH K, S/O KARIMUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O UDAYAGIRI CHIRANAHALLI MAIN ROAD MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571 436.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE BY MALAVALLI TOWN POLICE STATION MALAVALLI REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01.

¶16

CHANDRASHEKARA S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O KANDEGALALA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TOWN MANDYA -571 436.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶18

ANKITHA @ KUSUMA W/O ANIL KUMAR AGED MAJOR R/O 8TH CROSS SIDDARTHANAGARA MALAVALLI TOWN MALAVALLI -571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶19

ANIL @ ANIL KUMAR S/O CHANDRU AGED MAJOR R/O SIDDARTHANAGARA MALAVALLI TOWN MALAVALLI -571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶20

SUNITHA @ SUNDARAMMA W/O MAHALINGAIAH AGED MAJOR R/O SIDDARTHANAGARA MALAVALI TOWN MALAVALLI -571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶21

NAGARAJU S/O CHANNAIAH AGED MAJOR R/O KANDEGALA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TOWN MALAVALLI-571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶22

CHANDAN S/O NAGARAJU AGED MAJOR R/O KANDEGALA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TOWN MALAVALLI -571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶24

JAGADISH @ LAYER JAGADISH S/O ANKAIAH AGED MAJOR R/O KANDEGALAL VILLAGE MALAVALLI TOWN MALAVALLI -571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶25

SHIVAKUMAR @ DR.SHIVA KUMAR S/O ANKAIAH AGED MAJOR R/O KANDEGALAL VILLAGE MALAVALLI TOWN MALAVALLI-571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. DINAKAR M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, R6 AND R7; SMT. RAKSHAKEERTHANA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R8 AND R9)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND DIRECT THE 1^ST RESPONDENT i.e INVESTIGATION OFFICER OF MALAVALLI TOWN P.S., MALAVALLI TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE CASE IN C.C.NO.15/2021 UNDER THE CRIME NO.52/2020 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SECTION 302 OF IPC AND FURTHER DIRECT TO FILE ADDITIONAL CHARGE SHEET FOR AN OFFENCE SECTION 3 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SECTION 302 OF IPC.

¶29

IN CRL.P NO. 7049/2021:

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

SRI. JAGADEESHA S/O ANKAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PRACTICING ADVOCATE

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶33

R/O C/O KRISHNE GOWDA KRISNA NAGARA HERAGANAHALLI MYSORE - 560 009

¶34

PERMANENT ADDRESS: KANDEGALA VILLAGE POST MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA - 571 430.

¶35

DR. SHIVAKUMAR S/O ANKAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O NO.764, 8^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN NEAR NAGALINGESHWARA TEMPLE T.K. LAYOUT MYSORE - 560 009.

¶36

...PETITIONERS

¶37

(BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALAVALLI TOWN POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶40

ANDANAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O KARIMUDDAIAH R/AT UDAYAGIRI CHIRANAHALLI MAIN ROAD MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571 430.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶44

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.15/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 114, 498(a), 304(B), 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CVIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC, MALAVALLI RURAL AT MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶45

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

Heard learned counsels for petitioners, learned HCGP for

¶49

the respondent No.1-State and respective counsels for the respondents.

¶50

Crl.P.No.9193/2021 is filed by the

¶51

petitioner/complainant seeking the prayer to direct the first respondent Malavalli Town Police Station, Malavalli to further investigate the case in C.C.No.15/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘the D.P. Act’ for short), Section 302 IPC and further direct to file additional charge-sheet for the offence under Section 3 of D.P. Act and Section 302 IPC.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶53

Crl.P.No.7049/2021 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 seeking for a prayer to quash charge-sheet in C.C.No.15/2021 for the offence under Section 504, 114, 498(a), 304(B), 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶54

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant had lodged the complaint stating that his elder daughter was residing in Chiranahalli Village, Mandya Taluk and District and also working in Backward class hostel at Mandya. Ankitha and Mr. Chandrashekar were residing in complainant house as a tenant and during the meantime, Ankitha brain washed my daughter and without my knowledge, on 10.05.2020, my daughter got marked to Mr. Chandrashekar which is a love marriage and other accused supported the marriage and after knowing the same, the complainant tried to give complaint against the petitioners and others and the same was opposed by the complainant’s daughter and instead the complainant’s daughter gave a complaint against complainant. After all this, the complainant out of love and affection wanted to complete marriage customs and have a small function and same was brought to the knowledge of the accused family and

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶56

they abused and ill-treated the complainant and with regard to the same, a panchayath was held and in the meantime, the complainant was not allowed to meet Yogalakshmi (daughter) and on 21.09.2020, the complainant got a call from the accused family, who informed that his daughter was hospitalized and taking treatment in ICU at Suyog Hospital at Mysore. The complainant could not rush to the hospital on the same day, instead sent his family members, since he was working and the Doctor informed that complainant daughter’s health condition was critical and on the next date on 22.09.2020 at about 5.30 a.m., complainant’s daughter was declared as dead. It is the allegation in the complaint that the family of the accused was mentally and physically torturing for dowry. Hence, take legal action against the accused persons

¶57

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶58

petitioner/complainant in Crl.P.N.9193/2021 would contend that the police investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet, but failed to invoke Section 3 of D.P. Act, though there was clear demand. The counsel would contend that there is clear abetment and within a span of four months, his daughter passed away and Police have not properly investigated the

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶60

matter. Hence, it requires further investigation in the matter to invoke Section 3 as well as Section 302 IPC and prayed the Court to further investigate the matter.

¶61

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7049/2021 i.e., accused Nos.7 and 8 would vehemently contend that, first of all, these petitioners not belong to the family of the accused and contend that both of them are brothers and one is practicing as advocate and another is brother of the said advocate and only afterthought by creating a false story on the basis of the complaint, complainant family having inimical towards the petitioners falsely implicated these two petitioners. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that mere reading of charge-sheet is very clear that marriage of complainant’s daughter and accused No.1 is a love marriage and the same has been registered in the office of Sub-registrar Malavalli. Moreover, the deceased had lodged a complaint against the complainant on 18.05.2020 by alleging that the complainant was torturing the deceased and the same was registered as NCR on 18.05.2020 at Malavalli Rural Police Station. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that complainant was torturing the

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶63

deceased even during the time of lockdown declared by the Government of India over the phone call, then the deceased again lodged the complainant to the Superintendent of Police at Mandya on 09.06.2020. Hence, it clearly shows that they were not in cordial terms with the complainant and his daughter. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that respondent No.2 is a police officer and the respondent No.2 has used his influence and falsely implicated the petitioners. It is contended that provision of Section 304(B) and 498(a) IPC does not attract against the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated with an intention to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the theory of demand of money of Rs.2,00,000/- as well as execute a document with regard to the site is concerned is only an afterthought and when the marriage is a love marriage and the daughter of the complainant eloped with the accused, question of demanding dowry does not arise.

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶65

petitioner/complainant in Crl.P.N.9193/2021 would contend that the statement of C.W.1 and his friend Andanaiah is very clear regarding demand made by accused No.7 and also

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶67

statement of C.W.1 and said Andanaiah, who is friend of C.W.1 is very clear that when they went to hospital, the accused No.8 scolded that they cannot do anything and his brother is also an advocate and they will deal with the people and they cannot do anything about the death of their daughter and caused threat. The statement of said Andanaiah is very clear that accused No.6 having noticed both of them, came near them and scolded and demanded for money. When such material is available and Police have investigated the matter, the same requires to be tried before the Trial Court.

¶68

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1State would contend that the statement of witnesses is clear regarding demand as well as causing threat by accused Nos.6 and 7, the police have recorded the statement of witnesses and unless the same is controverted in the trial, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He would contend that question of further investigation does not arise and with regard to invoking Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, since there is no material.

¶69

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶70

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶71

learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State, respective counsels for the respondents and considering the pleadings and prayer sought in both the petitions, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶72

(1) Whether the petitioner/complainant has made out a case to give direction to further investigate the case as sought for in Crl.P.No.9193/2021?

¶73

(2) Whether the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 in Crl.P.No.7049/2021 have made out a case to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against them?

¶74

(3) What order?

¶75

Point Nos.(1)

¶76

Having considered the pleadings in

¶77

Crl.P.No.9193/2021, the main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant is that the Police have not properly investigated the matter. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court Section 3 of D.P. Act and having read Section 3 of D.P. Act, the same is with regard to ‘Penalty for giving or taking dowry’. If any person, after the

¶78

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶79

commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Having perused the material on record, there is no sufficient material to prove that there is abetment by accused No.6 along with accused No.7 and no material for giving or taking dowry in the case on hand and the very deceased eloped with accused and registered the marriage. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court that Investigating Officer did not invoke Section 302 IPC and the fact that the deceased passed away within a period of four months of marriage is not in dispute and hence, offence under Section 304(B) IPC is invoked and in order to invoke Section 302 IPC, the ingredients of said offence not exists. When such being the case, question of invoking Section 302 IPC does not arise as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. Hence, I do not find any ground to direct further investigation in the matter as sought in Crl.P.No.9193/2021. Therefore, I answer point No.1 as ‘negative’.

¶80

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶81

Point No.(2)

¶82

The main contention of learned counsel appearing

¶83

for the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 in Crl.P.No.7049/2021 is that there was no demand and only theory was created to implicate the petitioners and these petitioners are not the members of either the family of complainant or the family of the accused and no dispute with regard to the said fact is concerned. But, the very statement of C.W.1 before the Police is that, when he himself and other witness Andanaiah, who is his friend were proceeding to see the daughter and son-in-law, since they have received the information, at that time, accused Nos.6 and 7 came in motorcycle. Having noticed both of them, demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, in order to make accommodation to both his daughter and son-in-law and the same was witnessed by other witness, who is friend of C.W.1 and his name is also Andanaiah. Having perused the statement of Andanaiah also, he reiterates the evidence in line with C.W.1. So also in respect of accused No.8 is concerned, when C.W.1 received the information that his daughter was hospitalized, he immediately sent his family members on the very next day and he received the report of death of his

¶84

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶85

daughter and on the information given by accused No.8, he went to hospital and scuffle had taken place between both of them and at that time, accused No.8 caused threat stating that accused No.7 is his brother and he is a practising advocate and both of them are going to teach a lesson. The main conention of learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the demand is concerned and when the marriage was a registered marriage and the victim eloped with accused No.1, question of demand does not arise. Learned counsel with regard to the said contention is concerned, in view of the statement made by C.W.1 as well as other witness, who make the statement that he was very much present at the time of demand at the time of scuffle between the accused No.1 and C.W.1, matter requires trial. This Court at the stage of considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, cannot conduct a mini trial and the Court has to see whether there are materials against the petitioners. When such statements are there, at this juncture, this Court cannot take the decision invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶86

Having considered the statement of both of them and though CW1 is a complainant and the other witness Andanaiah is happens to be the friend of CW1, reliability on the

¶87

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11239 CRL.P No. 9193 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 7049 of 2021

¶88

statement of both of them also cannot be considered invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find grounds to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against accused No.7 and accused No.8. Admittedly, both of them are brothers and only on the ground that they are not the family members, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., when such statements are made against accused No.7 and accused No.8 by C.W.1 as well as other witness Andanaiah witnessing the said incident is concerned and the same has to be considered at the time of trial. Accordingly, I answer Point No.(2) as ‘negative’.

¶89

Point No.(3)

¶90