IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008
BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1289/2006
BETWEEN:
1. Shivakumar Shetty,
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
2. Balasubramnya Shetty,
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
3. Sri. Jeenendra Shetty,
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
4. Niranjan Shetty
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
5. Shalika Shetty
W/o. Niranjan Shetty Major,
A1 – A5 are R/o. ‘Sri Vasuki’,
Manial-Perampalli Road,
Ambagilu, Santhekatte Post, Udupi Taluk.
6. T. Vittal Shetty,
S/o. late Thimmappa Shetty, Major,
7. Savithri Shetty,
W/o. Vittal Shetty,
A6 – A7 are R/o. ‘Vishwaroopa’,
Parapu, Nakre Road,
Karkala Taluk, Udupi Dist.
8. Geetha Shetty,
W/o. Sampathkumar Shetty, Major,
Occ: Veterinary Inspector,
Kalya, Kaup Post,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.
9. Sampathkumar Shetty
S/o. Mr.Shetty Major,
Occ: Veterinary Inspector,
Kalya, Kaup Post,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.
10. Mohini Shetty,
D/o. Gulabi Shetty, Major,
R/o. Kotwalaguttu,
Uliyargoli Post,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.
11. Kum. Rohitha Shetty,
D/o Amba Shetty, Major,
R/o. Adve, Nandikur via
Padubidri Post, Palimaru,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.,
At present residing at
“Sri Vasuki:,
Manipel-Perampalli Road, Ambagilu,
Santhekatte Post, Udupi Taluk & Dist. …PETITIONERS
(By Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Adv.)
- AND-
1. Smt. Anusuya,
W/o. Shivakumar Shetty, Major,
Occ: Service,
C/o. Rajashekar,
Shiva Padma Compound,
N.H.No. 17, Kundapura-576 201.
2. The State of Karnataka,
By Udupi Town Police Station, Udupi,
Rep. by the SPP,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. A. Ramakrishna, HCGP for R-2,
Sri.A.Anand Shetty &
Sri.N.Rajashekar, Advs. For R-1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dt.28.1.06 passed in Cr.RP No.70/05 on the file of the S.J, Udupi, thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the petro, & confirming the order dt.20.7.05 in C.C.No.5043/02 on the file of the Addl.C.J (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Udupi & quash the entire proceedings pending thereon. This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11 in C.C.No.5043/2002 on the file of JMFC at Udupi, are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing the proceedings for the offence under Sections 323, 406, 498(A), 504 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard arguments for final disposal.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of thepetition may be stated as under;The Respondent No.1/complainant filed a private complaintin P.C.R.No.716/2000 on the file of JMFC at Udupi, alleging that the accused have committed offence under Sections 323, 406, 498(A), 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, laid charge-sheet against Accused No.1/husband, Accused No.3/brother of theAccused N.1 and Accused No.11/distant relative of Accused N. 1for the offence under Section 498(A). As against that report, thecomplainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, againreferred the matter to Dy.S.P for further investigation. The Dy.S.Palso, after investigation, filed a report stating that the reportalready filed is correct. But the learned Magistrate, after perusingthe protest petition, taken cognizance for the offence underSections 323, 406, 498(A), 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPCand under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of the Dowry Prohibition Act andordered to issue process. Therefore, the petitioners are before thisCourt, praying for quashing the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submita that theRespondent No.1/complainant is working as a Superintendent inSocial Welfare Department and the marriage of the complainantwith the Accused No.1 is a love marriage and their marriage wasperformed on 26.12.1993. The present complaint came to be filedon 13.11.2001. There was no issue out of the marriage. Hefurther submits that as per the averment of the complaint I ParaNo.3, the complainant and her husband were living separately in arented house, but the other accused used to visit her house andinstigate the Accused No.1 to ask for dowry and to ill-treat thecomplainant. The allegation that the relatives of the Accused No.1often visited the house of the complainant and the statement thatthey instigated Accused No.1 is a bald statement. He also submitsthat the relatives of the Accused No.1 did not oppose the marriageof the complainant with the Accused N.1. Since the complainantherself is a Government servant, the question of any demand fordowry is false. Therefore, he prays for quashing the proceedingsagainst the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/complainantsubmits that the averments made in the complaint are true andcorrect and it is only in evidence she will be in a position to proveher case and at this stage, it cannot be said that the complainanthas not made out a prima facie case for the offences allegedagainst the accused.
6. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learnedcounsels for the parties, it is crystal clear that the marriage of thecomplainant with the Accused No.1 was a love marriage and theywere living separately in a rentd house. Under suchcircumstances, the allegation that Accused Nos.2 to 11 werefrequently visiting the house of the complainant and theyinstigated Accused No.1 to demand dowry and ill-treat her, isnothing but a self-serving statement with an intention to harassthem. In my view, the complainant has not made out a prima faciecase for the offences alleged against the Accused Nos.2 to 11. In sogar as the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is concerned, thereappears to be a prima facie case for the alleged offences. I see nogood ground to quash the proceedings as against Accused No.1.
7. For the reasons stated supra, the petition in so far as Petitioners 2 to 11 (Accused Nos.2 to 11) is allowed. The PetitionerNo1’s petition is rejected and the proceedings inC.C.No.5043/2002 on the file of JMFC at Udupi, for the offenceunder Sections 323, 406, 498(A), 504 and 506(2) read with Section34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of Dowry ProhibitionAct as against Petitioners 2 to 11(Accused Nos.2 to 11), is quashed.
Sd/-
Judge
bnv*
Summary: There were 11 accused. The proceedings against accused 2 to 11 were quashed primarily because they were not staying with the couple.
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008
BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1289/2006
BETWEEN:
1. Shivakumar Shetty,
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
2. Balasubramnya Shetty,
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
3. Sri. Jeenendra Shetty,
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
4. Niranjan Shetty
S/o. T. Vittal Shetty, Major,
5. Shalika Shetty
W/o. Niranjan Shetty Major,
A1 – A5 are R/o. ‘Sri Vasuki’,
Manial-Perampalli Road,
Ambagilu, Santhekatte Post, Udupi Taluk.
6. T. Vittal Shetty,
S/o. late Thimmappa Shetty, Major,
7. Savithri Shetty,
W/o. Vittal Shetty,
A6 – A7 are R/o. ‘Vishwaroopa’,
Parapu, Nakre Road,
Karkala Taluk, Udupi Dist.
8. Geetha Shetty,
W/o. Sampathkumar Shetty, Major,
Occ: Veterinary Inspector,
Kalya, Kaup Post,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.
9. Sampathkumar Shetty
S/o. Mr.Shetty Major,
Occ: Veterinary Inspector,
Kalya, Kaup Post,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.
10. Mohini Shetty,
D/o. Gulabi Shetty, Major,
R/o. Kotwalaguttu,
Uliyargoli Post,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.
11. Kum. Rohitha Shetty,
D/o Amba Shetty, Major,
R/o. Adve, Nandikur via
Padubidri Post, Palimaru,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.,
At present residing at
“Sri Vasuki:,
Manipel-Perampalli Road, Ambagilu,
Santhekatte Post, Udupi Taluk & Dist. …PETITIONERS
(By Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Adv.)
- AND-
1. Smt. Anusuya,
W/o. Shivakumar Shetty, Major,
Occ: Service,
C/o. Rajashekar,
Shiva Padma Compound,
N.H.No. 17, Kundapura-576 201.
2. The State of Karnataka,
By Udupi Town Police Station, Udupi,
Rep. by the SPP,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. A. Ramakrishna, HCGP for R-2,
Sri.A.Anand Shetty &
Sri.N.Rajashekar, Advs. For R-1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dt.28.1.06 passed in Cr.RP No.70/05 on the file of the S.J, Udupi, thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the petro, & confirming the order dt.20.7.05 in C.C.No.5043/02 on the file of the Addl.C.J (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Udupi & quash the entire proceedings pending thereon. This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11 in C.C.No.5043/2002 on the file of JMFC at Udupi, are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing the proceedings for the offence under Sections 323, 406, 498(A), 504 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard arguments for final disposal.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of thepetition may be stated as under;The Respondent No.1/complainant filed a private complaintin P.C.R.No.716/2000 on the file of JMFC at Udupi, alleging that the accused have committed offence under Sections 323, 406, 498(A), 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, laid charge-sheet against Accused No.1/husband, Accused No.3/brother of theAccused N.1 and Accused No.11/distant relative of Accused N. 1for the offence under Section 498(A). As against that report, thecomplainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, againreferred the matter to Dy.S.P for further investigation. The Dy.S.Palso, after investigation, filed a report stating that the reportalready filed is correct. But the learned Magistrate, after perusingthe protest petition, taken cognizance for the offence underSections 323, 406, 498(A), 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPCand under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of the Dowry Prohibition Act andordered to issue process. Therefore, the petitioners are before thisCourt, praying for quashing the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submita that theRespondent No.1/complainant is working as a Superintendent inSocial Welfare Department and the marriage of the complainantwith the Accused No.1 is a love marriage and their marriage wasperformed on 26.12.1993. The present complaint came to be filedon 13.11.2001. There was no issue out of the marriage. Hefurther submits that as per the averment of the complaint I ParaNo.3, the complainant and her husband were living separately in arented house, but the other accused used to visit her house andinstigate the Accused No.1 to ask for dowry and to ill-treat thecomplainant. The allegation that the relatives of the Accused No.1often visited the house of the complainant and the statement thatthey instigated Accused No.1 is a bald statement. He also submitsthat the relatives of the Accused No.1 did not oppose the marriageof the complainant with the Accused N.1. Since the complainantherself is a Government servant, the question of any demand fordowry is false. Therefore, he prays for quashing the proceedingsagainst the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/complainantsubmits that the averments made in the complaint are true andcorrect and it is only in evidence she will be in a position to proveher case and at this stage, it cannot be said that the complainanthas not made out a prima facie case for the offences allegedagainst the accused.
6. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learnedcounsels for the parties, it is crystal clear that the marriage of thecomplainant with the Accused No.1 was a love marriage and theywere living separately in a rentd house. Under suchcircumstances, the allegation that Accused Nos.2 to 11 werefrequently visiting the house of the complainant and theyinstigated Accused No.1 to demand dowry and ill-treat her, isnothing but a self-serving statement with an intention to harassthem. In my view, the complainant has not made out a prima faciecase for the offences alleged against the Accused Nos.2 to 11. In sogar as the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is concerned, thereappears to be a prima facie case for the alleged offences. I see nogood ground to quash the proceedings as against Accused No.1.
7. For the reasons stated supra, the petition in so far as Petitioners 2 to 11 (Accused Nos.2 to 11) is allowed. The PetitionerNo1’s petition is rejected and the proceedings inC.C.No.5043/2002 on the file of JMFC at Udupi, for the offenceunder Sections 323, 406, 498(A), 504 and 506(2) read with Section34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6(A) of Dowry ProhibitionAct as against Petitioners 2 to 11(Accused Nos.2 to 11), is quashed.
Sd/-
Judge
bnv*
Summary: There were 11 accused. The proceedings against accused 2 to 11 were quashed primarily because they were not staying with the couple.
No comments:
Post a Comment