Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200887 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN:
1. HARSHAL S/O PANDURANGA PINGALE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O SATTPUR ASHOK NAGAR, DIST. NASIK, MAHARASHTRA-422012.
2. SUNANDA W/O PANDURANGA PINGLE, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O SATTPUR ASHOK NAGAR, DIST. NASIK, Digitally signed by STATE MAHARASHTRA-422012 SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA
UDAGI 3. PANDURANG PINGLE Location: High S/O SHANKAR PINGLE, Court Of AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK,Karnataka R/O SATTPUR ASHOK NAGAR, DIST. NASIK, STATE MAHARASHTRA-422012 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MAHILA CITY POLICE STATION KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP -2- HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI -585102
2. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O HARSHAL PINGLE, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O SATTPUR ASHOKNAGAR DIST. NASIK (MAHARASHTRA) NOW R/O VITAL NAGAR, KHUBA PLOT, KALABURAGI-585105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GURURAJ GOPAL RAO, (ABSENT) ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 17466/2022 IN CRIME NO. 71/2022 REGISTERED BY THE KALABURAGI CITY MAHILA POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 AND SEC. 3, 4 AND 6 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in CC No.17466/2022 arising out of Crime -3- Number 71/2022 registered by Kalaburagi Women Police Station, Kalaburagi District and charge sheeted for the offenses punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the arguments learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 remained absent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint
was filed by the respondent No.2 on 20.07.2022 alleging that she was married to the first petitioner on 29.11.2021 at Annapurna hotel. Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are from Nasik, Maharashtra. At the time of marriage two thola of gold and rupees one lakh cash was given as dowry apart from the household articles, cloths, etc., Even at the time of engagement, her parents spent one lakh rupees towards expenditures. For about 15 days after the marriage the accused persons looked after her very well, thereafter accused Nos.1 to 3 started continuously harassing her and
-4- suspecting her character. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to say that if they had married another girl and they would have
received more dowry and thereby they continued harassing her physically and mentally. She tolerated the same and did not intimate to her parents. It is further alleged that on 22.03.2022 at about 05:00 p.m. when she was in the house, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel, abused her in filthy language and assaulted with hands. They demanded Rs.1.5 lakhs dowry and also gold and they threatened her that would not spare her otherwise. They abused her in filthy language and they have thrown out the complainant from the house. Therefore she has telephoned to her parents, came back to Kalaburagi and stayed in parents house. It is further alleged that subsequently the accused persons said to have telephoned to her parents and stated that they want to come to Kalaburagi for discussion or settlement. Accordingly, on 26.04.2022 at 11:00 the accused Nos.1 to 3 came to Kalaburagi under the guise of discussion. At that time her parents, her uncle Subhash, her brother Basavaraj and her
-5-
friend Manjula Patil were present in the house. During the course of discussion, the accused persons said to have scolded the respondent, demanded further dowry and abused her in filthy language. They said to have told that until she brings the additional dowry, they will not take her bank into their house. When they started abusing and assaulting the complainant, her friends and others came and rescued her. She has waited for some more time thinking that the accused will come and take her. But, they did not turn up and she was forced to file a complaint to the police. The police after registering the FIR,
investigated the matter and file the charge sheet. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended
the petitions have been falsely implicated. The respondent herself left the matrimonial home by taking all the ornaments and jewels and she is reluctant to come to the matrimonial home. It is not possible for accused Nos.2 and 3 to come to Kalaburagi for quarreling and assaulting the -6-
respondent due to their old age. The accused persons never came to Kalaburagi, even as per the statement given by complainant’s father in the matrimonial case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the petition.
6. A perusal of the records would go to show that
the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1 took place on 29.11.2021. It is stated that at the time of marriage two thola of gold and Rs.1 lakh cash has given as dowry. They looked well after her for about 15 days. Thereafter, the accused persons started suspecting her character and started abusing her. On 22.03.2022, accused persons picked up call with the complainant at 05:00 p.m. They abused and assaulted her with hands and they demanded 1.5 lakhs as additional dowry. They have thrown out the complaint from the house. Therefore she -7-
came back to Kalaburagi and stayed in parent’s house. On 26.04.2022, the accused persons said to have came to Kalaburagi for discussion. During that discussion, there was once again quarrel. The accused person said to have assaulted the complainant and then she was rescued by her brother, parents and her friend. Though, the learned council for the petitioners submits that he father of respondent No.2 has given a statement in the matrimonial case in the Matrimonial Court that the petitioners did not come to Kalaburagi, after respondent No.2 returned to Kalaburagi. That admission cannot be considered here for a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If at all there are
any improvements or any evidence in any other proceedings, that has to be confronted to the maker of the statement as required under section 145 of the Indian Evidence act. Therefore, that cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The statement of the other witnesses shows that under the guise of discussion the petitioners came to Kalaburagi on 26.04.2022. There was a quarrel and the petitioners assaulted respondent
-8- No.2, then the family members of the complainant rescued her. Such being the case, merely because the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are aged person, that itself is not a ground for
causing the criminal proceedings. They can seek exemption before the learned Magistrate for appearance by filing application under section 317 of Cr.P.C. and they can even appear through VC before the learned Magistrate from their own house. There is a prima facie case made out against the petitioners for having committed the
offence. Hence, it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, following order:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SI