Chandrashekar vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Venkatesh Naik T, J

This petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.120/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in so far as accused No.4 is concerned.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 08.06.2024 the first informant lodged the complaint to the respondent – Police alleging that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 13.02.2015 and at the time of marriage, her parents had given a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and six tholas of gold as dowry. After the marriage, the victim and accused No.1 were residing in a rented house at Vaddu Village near Toranagallu and at that time, respondent No.2 used to sell saaries at home. During COVID-19, the couple returned to Achar Narasapurra, the village of accused No.1. After the COVID-19 pandemic, accused No.1 was unemployed and began to harass the victim. Her in-laws also pressured her to bring Rs.5,00,000 as dowry from her parental home. On 06.03.2024, the victim was physically assaulted by her husband and in-laws. Again, on 26.05.2024 at around 7:30 p.m., Accused No. 2 and the petitioner quarreled with her, deliberately insulted her, and intentionally caused her harm. Thus she lodged the complaint. This led to registration of the FIR and the investigation. The petitioner was arrested and arrayed as accused No.4 in this case. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner filed this petition.

In the FIR lodged by the victim, it is stated that on 26.05.2024 all the accused persons took quarrel with her, assaulted her, abused in filthy language, thereby harassed her and also demanded to bring dowry. The alleged incident had taken place on 26.05.2024, but, the complaint was lodged on 08.06.2024 without offering any plausible explanation.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of A.P. vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582, at para 30 has held as follows:

"30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, at para 18 has held as follows:

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

Perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that, except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation as against the petitioner – accused No.4, who is brother-in-law of first informant herein as to how and in what manner he subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty. The FIR was lodged by the second respondent insofar as the petitioner is concerned without any probable cause and with malice. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.216/2024 [arising out of Crime No.120/2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, Koppal District] for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, insofar as, accused No.4, is hereby quashed.

iii. In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.