IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201235/2018 Between: 1. Nagamma W/o Siddan Sinnur Age: 56 years, Occ: Teacher R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi Colony Kalaburagi 2. Anand S/o Siddanna Sinnur Age: 30 years, Occ: Private service R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi Colony Kalaburagi 3. Shilpa D/o Siddan Sinnur Age: 33 years, Occ: Dentist R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi Colony, Kalaburagi ... Petitioners (By Sri R.V.Nadagouda, Advocate) And: 1. State of Karnataka Through Rural Police Station Rept. By High Court SPP Kalaburagi-585107 Crl.P.No.201235/2018 2 2. Smt. Purnima S/o Shivanand Sinnur Age: 32 years, Occ: Household R/o KHB Akka Mahadevi Colony Kalaburagi-585107 ... Respondents (By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R1; Sri N.B.Diwanji, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the filing of the charge sheet on the petitioners which is pending on the file of the V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi in C.C.No.4598/2018, (Crime No.51/2018, offences punishable under sections 323, 498(A), 355, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act). This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press the petition for petitioner nos.1 and 2.
In view of the above submission, the petition of petitioner nos.1 and 2 stands dismissed as not pressed. As such, the present petition is confined only to present petitioner no.3.
2. The present petitioner Shilpa D/o Siddan Sinnur has sought for quashing the criminal proceeding in C.C.No.4598/2018 confining to her, wherein the offences punishable under sections 323, 498A, 355, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘IPC‘) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘D.P.Act’) have been alleged against the accused.
3. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Smt. Purnima W/o Shivanand Sinnur is said to have married to accused No.1 Shivanand on 05.12.2016, during which time a portion of the dowry in the form of cash, ornaments and articles of utility were said to have been given to the accused. However, a portion of the dowry of a sum of `1,00,000/- was kept as balance. The complainant has alleged that to get the said remaining balance of Crl.P.No.201235/2018 the dowry, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in- law and sister-in-law were harassing her physically and mentally. The complainant has given further details of the alleged ill-treatment said to have been meted to her. Ultimately, the police, after completing the investigation, have filed charge sheet against all the four accused for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 355, 504 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner who is accused no.4 in the case, is admittedly the sister-in-law of the complainant. However, he submits that the said petitioner has never been residing with the complainant during the relevant period of time, when the alleged cruelty has been alleged against the accused. Learned counsel further submits that he has got every documents to place before the Court to Crl.P.No.201235/2018 show that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was working at Madikeri. He further submits that even otherwise, there are no allegations levelled against the present petitioner and merely because she is sister-in-law of the complainant, her name is also included, only to harass her.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader, in his argument for respondent no.1, submits that the Investigating Officer has collected materials to subject every accused for trial.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, supporting the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader, has also stated that the complainant has given a detailed account of the cruelty meted to her in her matrimonial home, as such, the accused/petitioner deserves to be tried for the alleged offences.
7. A perusal of the charge sheet materials placed before this Court at this stage and prima facie would go to show that the complainant in the case is none else than the alleged victim who claims to be the wife of accused no.1 and sister-in-law of the present petitioner. In her very complaint, at the first instance, though she has spoken about the alleged demand for dowry said to have been made by her husband and mother-in-law, but given a detailed account of the alleged instances of the cruelty said to have been meted to her in her matrimonial home.
However, a reading of those details of the alleged cruelty including the one where she is said to have consumed dettol due to unbearable cruelty meted to her, would go to show that her direct allegation is, apart from her husband, confined only to her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Repeated at several places, she has accused her mother-in-law Crl.P.No.201235/2018 and brother-in-law as the one who subjected her to alleged cruelty and ill-treatment. It is only at one place in the beginning, with respect to the alleged demand for dowry, she has mentioned about her sister-in-law who is the present petitioner herein.
However, a reading of the complaint in its entirety, go to show that in a mechanical manner she might have added the name of her sister-in-law who is the accused no.4/petitioner since she was one among the family members of the husband of the complainant. Rest of it, the entire allegation is bereft of any overt act alleged against the present petitioner, as already observed above, is concentrated and confined only against the remaining accused. No material appears to be there in the charge sheet arraigning the finger against the present petitioner.
8. Further, the petitioner has also produced a document in the form of a relieving order said to have been issued by Principal, Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences showing that the present petitioner who was working as a Reader in the said institute, was relieved due to her resignation on 2nd February, 2018. Though learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the said document may have to be analysed in trial, but prima facie and at this stage, the said document cannot be totally discarded and more than that, as observed above, since in the absence of any direct overt act alleged against the present petitioner, continuation of the criminal case against the present petitioner and subjecting her to face the trial, would only be a futile exercise, which results in the harassment to the present petitioner by compelling her to face the trial.
Crl.P.No.201235/2018 As such, I am of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the power under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The criminal case against the present petitioner deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in C.C.No.4598/2018 said to have been pending on the file of V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 323, 355, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed as against and confined to the present petitioner Smt. Shilpa D/o Siddan Sinnur only.