MR SALVADOR FERNANDES Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 3587 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1.
MR.SALVADOR FERNANDES
S/O ALEX FERNANDES
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT NO.1652/1, NEAR ST.IGNATIOUS HOSPITAL
PRABHATH NAGAR, HONNAVARA
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 334.
2.
SMT. FULLA FERNANDES @ FLORINE FERNANDES
W/O SALVADOR FERNANDES
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.1652/1, NEAR ST.IGNATIOUS HOSPITAL
PRABHATH NAGAR, HONNAVARA
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 334.
3.
SMT.GRETTA ALVAN LOUIS
D/O SALVADOR FERNANDES
W/O ALVAN JAMES LOUIS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT B/75 CHEDDA COMPLEX
NEAR CHARKOP VILLAGE
CHARKOP VILLAGE
KANDIVALI WEST, MUMBAI
MAHARASTRA – 400 067.
4.
SRI ALVAN JAMES LOUIS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT B/75 CHEDDA COMPLEX
NEAR CHARKOP VILLAGE
CHARKOP VILLAGE

Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 3587 of 2022

KANDIVALI WEST, MUMBAI
MAHARASTRA – 400 067.
5.
SMT.SUNITHA SALVADOR NORONHA
D/O SALVADOR FERNANDES
W/O ANIL NORMAN NORONHA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT 4-61(2), KIRIYADKA HOUSE
SHANTHI MANSION, BELLE VILLAGE
PAMBOOR POST, SHIRVA, UDUPI – 574 116.
6.
SRI ANIL NORMAN NORONAH
S/O WILIAM NORONAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT 4-61(2), KIRIYADKA HOUSE
SHANTHI MANSION, BELLE VILLAGE
PAMBOOR POST, SHIRVA,
UDUPI – 574 116.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MURTHY D., SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI ARIKESARI K.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BANASAWADI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU 560 043.
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2.
SMT.NADIA NISHA D’SOUZA
D/O BENZAMIN PAL D’SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NIRMALANIVASA
3^RD MAIN ROAD, KEERTHI LAYOUT
- 3 -
CRL.P No. 3587 of 2022

OLD NEELAGIRIS ROAD
KAMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU – 560 084.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MELANIE SEBASTIAN BY M/S TOMY SEBASTIAN
ASSTS., ADVCOATES FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6/ACCUSED
NO.2
TO
7
IN
CR.NO.515/2020
WHICH
IS
NOW
AS
C.C.NO.53919/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XI ACMM,
MAYO HALL, BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S
498A R/W 149 OF IPCA DN SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

the proceedings in C.C.No.53919/2021 registered for offences

punishable under Sections 498A r/w Section 149 of the IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Murthy.D.Naik

appearing for petitioners, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, and Sri.Melanie

Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

- 4 -

3. Before embarking upon consideration of the case on its

merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between

the parties to the lis. Accused No.1 is the husband of the

complainant, the 2^nd respondent who is not before the Court.

Accused No.2 is the father-in-law, accused No.3 is the mother-

in-law, accused No.4 sister-in-law, accused No.5 is the husband

of the said sister-in-law, accused No.6 another sister-in-law

and accused No.7 is the husband of the said sister-in-law.

Marriage between accused No.1 and the 2^nd respondent takes

place on 29.10.2017 and it transpires that the couple after

marriage shifted to Dubai on 14.11.2017 itself. The narration

in the complaint would depict that the couple came back to

India in the year 2020 and on 27.10.2020 an incidence of

altercations or a squabble happens between the complainant,

her family members and the petitioners herein. This leads to

registration of a crime by both the mother-in-law of the 2^nd

respondent and the 2^nd respondent. The mother-in-law of the

2^nd respondent registers a complaint on 17.12.2020 which

becomes a crime in Crime No.259/2020 for offences under

Sections 504, 506, 143, 147, 323, 448, and 354 of the IPC.

Likewise, a little earlier on 26.11.2020 the complainant

registers a complaint against the petitioners and her husband

- 5 -

for offence punishable as afore-quoted. Therefore, two

complaints spring from the incidents that takes place on

26.10.2020 and 27.10.2020.

4. It transpires that the complaint registered by the

mother-in-law of the complainant has resulted in police filing a

charge sheet after investigation for the aforesaid offences and

in the case at hand the police here again have filed a charge

sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w

Section 149 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act against all accused including husband-

accused No.1. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the

petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned senior counsel Sri.Murthy.D.Naik would

contend with vehemence that there are no allegations that

would touch upon the offence that would become punishable

under Section 498A of the IPC and therefore, the proceedings

should be quashed, as the petitioners 1 and 2 are residing at

Honnavara, petitioners 3 and 4 are residents of Maharashtra

and petitioners 5 and 6 are residents of Udupi. The

- 6 -

complainant and the husband-accused No.1 were initially

residing at Dubai and then come to India in the year 2020 and

would submit that the entire charge sheet is based upon

omnibus statements of all the witnesses and there is no

semblance of truth in any of the allegations so made.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2^nd

respondent - complainant would refute the submissions to

contend that the mother-in-law and the petitioners 3 and 4

were in fact present at the alleged scene of crime on

26.10.2020 and 27.10.2020 as they themselves had registered

the complaint which has now resulted in charge sheet against

the complainant and her family, though he would admit that

there are no allegations against the father-in-law and accused

Nos.6 and 7.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the

lines of the 2^nd respondent.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties

and perused the material on record.

- 7 -

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and need

not be reiterated. The subject criminal case arises out

Click Here to Read the rest of this document