Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, J.
Sri. Santhosh Padmanabha S/o Padmanabha And Ors - Petitioners
Versus
State By Hanumanthanagara Police Represented By State Public Prosecutor and Ors - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.2744 of 2016
Decided On : 27-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Rajesh Rai, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. I. S. Pramod Chandra, SPPII Sri. Chethan B., Adv.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 498A r/w 34 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Unlawful demand of any property or valuable security – Quash of order – First Information Report - Whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained - Whether evidence in question is reliable or not - Whether said allegations lead to conviction of accused - Learned counsel for petitioners submits that allegations made against petitioners are false and do not make out ingredients of offences alleged against petitioners - Complainant lived with petitioner No.1 only for six years - Except alleging that during this period their relationship was not cordial and that there were some instances of differences between parties in complaint she did not allege any specific instance of cruelty - It is only in her further statement recorded after months complainant has come up with fresh allegations only to foist false charges against petitioners - He submits that petitioner No.4 is a permanent resident of USA and did not reside with complainant at any point of time and therefore there was no basis for complainant to make allegations against petitioner No.4 - Even with regard to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 complainant herself has admitted that as and when they used to come to her house they did not allow her to close door of her bedroom which indicates that even petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not residing with complainant - Under these circumstances there is no truth or substance in allegations made by complainant that at instance of petitioners 2 to 4 her husband subjected her to cruelty and harassment – Held, Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly - At same time section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death - Scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and categories of cases where High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State - A note of caution was however added that power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases - Referring to further statement of respondent No.2 learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPPII would contend that in further statement all constitutes of offences are narrated and therefore there is no ground to quash impugned proceedings – Court have gone through further statement of complainant recorded by Investigating Officer - First and foremost this statement has been recorded more than months after registration of FIR - As such it has lost its spontaneity and veracity - This statement on face of it appears to be an afterthought - It contains such an exaggerated version that it defies all reason and logic to place any reliance thereon – Court of opinion that criminal proceedings have been invoked by petitioners only to unleash vendetta to harass petitioner - Complainant appears to be not interested in any matrimonial reliefs but has implicated all members of family including petitioner No.4 who is a permanent resident of USA - Material on record indicates that all throughout petitioner No.4 was residing in USA - Even petitioners 2 and 3 were residing with petitioner No.4 for a substantial period after marriage of petitioner No.1 with complainant - It is only petitioner No.1 and complainant who resided in matrimonial home - On account of matrimonial differences between complainant and petitioner No.1 complainant appears to have initiated criminal action against petitioners - On considering allegations made in charge sheet and material produced along with charge sheet court of view that initiation of criminal action against petitioners is malafide and vexatious and is intended to harass petitioners - Hence in court view jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is required to be exercised in present set of facts - It is also necessary to note that initially FIR was registered only for offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act - Surprisingly in charge sheet offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are incorporated - On going through further statement of complainant except stating that petitioner No.1 was in habit of coming home drunk and assaulting her and kicking her there is no specific instance of any assault by petitioner No.1 constituting offence under Section 323 of IPC - In earlier complaint no such allegations were made even against petitioner No.1 - Manner in which above offences are incorporated in charge sheet would indicate that even Investigating Officer has yielded to pressure of complainant and solely on basis of self-interested version of complainant has implicated petitioners in alleged offences without there being any material to support said accusations - On going through charge sheet court do not find any material in support of charges under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC - As a result prosecution of petitioners for above offences has turned out to be an abuse of process of Court – Therefore court of view that proceedings initiated against petitioners are liable to be quashed - Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners 2 and 3 are the in-laws and petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’). She lodged a complaint before Hanumanthanagar police on 12.12.2015 based on which Crime No.415/2015 was registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DP Act’ for short). After investigation, chargesheet is laid against the petitioners for the above offences. The petitioners have sought to quash the initiation of the proceedings and the submission of chargesheet against them for the above offences.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned SPPII for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and do not make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The complainant lived with petitioner No.1 only for six years. Except alleging that during this period their relationship was not cordial and that there were some instances of differences between the parties, in the complaint she did not allege any specific instance of cruelty. It is only in her further statement recorded after 3½ months, the complainant has come up with fresh allegations only to foist false charges against petitioners. He submits that petitioner No.4 is a permanent resident of USA and did not reside with the complainant at any point of time and therefore there was no basis for the complainant to make allegations against petitioner No.4. Even with regard to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the complainant herself has admitted that as and when they used to come to her house, they did not allow her to close the door of her bedroom which indicates that even petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not residing with the complainant. Under these circumstances, there is no truth or substance in the allegations made by the complainant that at the instance of petitioners 2 to 4, her husband subjected her to cruelty and harassment. The learned counsel has referred to the stamping on the passport and would submit that during the period from 22.04.2011 to 10.12.2011, 21.09.2012 to 09.11.2012 and 25.06.2013 to 14.11.2014, petitioners 2 and 3 were out of India. The above document coupled with the fact that these allegations are levelled against these petitioners only in her further statement given after about 3½ months from the date of lodging the complaint, would indicate that with malafide intention to implicate the petitioners in the alleged offences, the complainant has garnered false evidence and hence the prosecution of the petitioners being malafide and vexatious, is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned SPPII appearing for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie attract the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The complainant has narrated specific instances of cruelty in her complaint as well as in her further statement. There is no requirement under law that the specific instances of cruelty or the facts constituting the offences should be detailed in the complaint. As the investigating agency has collected necessary material in proof of these accusations, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot sift evidence and cannot decide as to whether the said allegations lead to conviction of the accused. As the material on record prima facie establish the ingredients of the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, there is no justifiable reason to quash the proceedings. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on para10 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. VS. SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO [(2005) 13 SCC 540]
