Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
J.M. KHAZI, J.
Sri Anup Ishanna Sonnad, S/o. Ishanna Sonnad & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka, By Koppal Women’s Police Station, Banikatti, Koppal, Represented by the Special Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 101614 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 11-04-2023
For the Petitioner: Sri N. Gowtham Raghunath.
For the Respondent:Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, HCGP, Sri Vyas Desai, Advocate for Sri Jagadish Patil.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that when a complaint is filed with false allegations and the complainant has obtained a divorce and benefits arising from it without disclosing the proceedings to the court, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the court.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4: The court considered the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act in relation to the allegations of dowry harassment made in the complaint. It found that the allegations did not attract the provisions of the Act. Indian Penal Code - Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and Section 34: The court analyzed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code that were invoked in the complaint. It concluded that the allegations made in the complaint did not constitute offenses under these sections. Constitution of India - Article 226: The petitioners filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of the FIR and complaint. The court considered the petitioners' arguments and the provisions of Article 226 in reaching its decision to quash the FIR and complaint.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed a writ petition to quash the FIR and complaint filed against them for dowry harassment. They argued that the case was registered without proper application of mind and that the allegations made in the complaint were false. They also claimed that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was dissolved by a Family Court in the USA. The court heard the arguments and perused the records. It found that the allegations were false and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the court. Therefore, it quashed the FIR and complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the facts of the case, including the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence provided by the petitioners. It also considered the divorce proceedings in the USA and the conduct of respondent No.2. The court concluded that the allegations were false and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a complaint is filed with false allegations and the complainant has obtained a divorce and benefits arising from it without disclosing the proceedings to the court, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the court. Therefore, the court quashed the FIR and complaint.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and complaint were quashed.
ORDER :
1. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR and complaint dated 22.02.2022 in Crime No.11/2022 registered with respondent No.1, on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2.
2. Petitioners have contended that respondent No.1 has registered the case without proper application of mind and non-consideration of the statements made in the complaint which are false. In the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, respondent No.1police have erred in registering the case. Respondent No.1police have not followed the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
3. The respondent No.1 has not considered the fact that the allegations made in the complaint does not attract provisions of Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent No.1police have erred in not appreciating the fact that on the alleged date of incident, petitioners were not physically present at Koppal. Without conducting preliminary enquiry, the respondent No.1police have erred in registering the case. Having regard to the fact that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is dissolved by the Family Court at Austin, USA, the allegations made in the complaint are false, frivolous and with a view to victimize the petitioners.
4. In fact vide message/email dated 28.02.2022, respondent No.2 has informed petitioner No.1 that she would be returning to USA to complete the formalities in respect of final decree of divorce. When the alleged harassment took place at USA, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to register the case and proceed against the petitioners. Only to harass the petitioners, complaint is filed and prays to allow the petition.
5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments :
i. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (Gian Singh case), (2012) 10 SCC 303
ii. State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359
iii. Y. Narasimha Rao & others vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi & others, (1191) 3 SCC 451
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that based on the complaint, case is registered and investigation is taken up. The allegations made in the complaint requires thorough investigation and prays to reject the petition.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
8. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 is the ex-wife of petitioner No.1.
9. On 22.02.2022, respondent No.2 has filed complaint alleging that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 12.02.2020 at Koppal. At the time of marriage, petitioners demanded and received 50 tolas of gold, 5 kgs of silver and Rs.50 lakhs in cash. Her harassment started immediately on the next day of the marriage for on 13.02.2020 i.e., on the next date of her marriage, the marriage of her brother was solemnized. However, petitioner No.1 did not allow her to attend the said marriage and took her to Bengaluru. On the 3rd day of marriage i.e., on 14.02.2020, all the petitioners started harassing her saying that dowry paid is not sufficient and demanded additional dowry in the form of 20 tolas of gold and Rs.20 lakhs in cash.
10. In the complaint, it is further stated that on 28.02.2020 i.e., within a period of 16 days from the date of her marriage, she left for USA along with petitioner No.1, but petitioners No.2 and 3 remained at Bengaluru. She alleges that though they were staying at Bengaluru, they used to make phone calls to her and demand additional dowry and in fact through her father she came to know that her family members a
