IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9027 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

• 1. MR. ANKUR GUPTA SON OF RAJENDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.293, VII "A" MAIN, 1 ST STAGE, HEBBAL MYSURU-570 016.
• 2. MR. RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA SON OF LATE KRISHNA SUHANE AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
• 3. MRS. SUNITA GUPTA WIFE OF RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.634/1, RAMNAGAR ADHARTAL-482 004 JABALPUR DISTRICT MADYA PRADESH.

• 4. MR. ANSHUL GUPTA SON OF RAJENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 31 YELARS RESIDING AT NO.N-8-180/117 LANE NO.6, RAJENDRA VIHAR COLONY NEWADA, SUNDERPUR-221 005 VARNASI, UTTAR PRADESH.
• 5. MRS. PRIYA GUPTA DAUGHTER OF RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT RIDHHI SIDDHI STATIONARY, NEAR NAGAR PALIKA MAIN ROAD,

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NC: 2023:KHC:28032 CRL.P No. 9027 of 2018

DEORI TEHSIL-470 226 SAGAR DISTRICT, MADYA PRADESH.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

• 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMENT POLICE STATION, DEVARAJA SUB DIVISION, MYSURU CITY-570 016.
• 2. MRS. VARSHA GUPTA WIFE OF ANKUR GUPTA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.293, 1 ST STAGE, VII MAIN, HEBBAL, MYSURU-570 016.

ALSO AT MAA SHARDA ELECTRONICS BEEJ BHANDAR ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND, KARERA-473 660, SHIVPURI DISTRICT. MADHYA PRADESH.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SMT. MEENA S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 17.09.2018 IN CRIME NO.54/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, READ WITH SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, ON THE FILE OF FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

NC: 2023:KHC:28032 CRL.P No. 9027 of 2018

ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.54/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending trial before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mysuru.

2. The respondent No.2 herein is the wife of the petitioner No.1, while the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are her in-laws while petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are her brother-in-law and sisterin-law.

3. The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the respondent No.1 on 17.09.2018 claiming that she was given in marriage to the petitioner No.1 on 13.02.2011. She alleged that at the time of her marriage, her father arranged money to pay dowry to the petitioner No.1, which was paid to him and petitioner No.2 in the presence of other petitioners. She claimed that after marriage more dowry was demanded and that her father sent all the household appliances and 40 grams of gold ornaments worth Rs.3,50,000/-. She claimed that she

was staying with the petitioners at Surat at which point, the petitioners had demanded extra dowry. However, she claimed that she did not complain against the petitioners, fearing that it may mar the marriage. She claimed that when they were in Surat, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by cash to the petitioner No.1 and thereafter, she moved to Jabalpur with the petitioners, who allegedly kept on torturing her to bring more dowry. Further, she claimed that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was transferred to the maternal uncle of the petitioner No.1. During February at the time of marriage of sister of the petitioner No.1, further dowry was demanded and that her father gave money to save her marriage. She claimed that when the petitioner No.4 met with a accident, her father transferred Rs.50,000/- to the Account of the petitioner No.1. She alleged that when her husband was transferred from Jabalpur to Mysuru, her father again gave household appliances and items worth Rs.3,00,000/- and gave 30 grams gold to the petitioner No.1. She claimed that her father was a businessman and an agriculturist who owned 50 acres of land. She alleged that the petitioner No.1 was torturing her to get the land transferred to her name and that she and her children were thrown out of the

• 4 -

house. She claimed that she silently suffered all the tortures meted out and that she was mentally and physically harassed by her husband and in-laws. She claimed that when she was living in Mysuru, petitioner No.1 brought girls to the house and when she questioned, he physically abused her and claimed that he would stop only if she brought more dowry. She alleged that on 04.11.2017, she lodged a formal complaint with Hebbal Police Station, Mysuru and that the police had summoned the petitioner No.1 and warned him. Nonetheless, the petitioner No.1 continued to demand more dowry. On 15.09.2018, when she refused to call her father for more money as demanded by the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 allegedly beat her in the presence of kids and tried to strangle her and later threw her out of the house by snatching away her mobile. She claimed that she walked to a nearby shopkeeper and requested him to permit her to make phone call to her father and brothers. Thereafter, she informed the happenings to her father and went to the Hebbal Police Station to lodge a complaint. She claimed that though the complaint was received and though they called the petitioner No.1 to the police station, she was advised to go to Women Police Station. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.54/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. Being aggrieved by the prosecution initiated, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2 was given in marriage in the year 2011 and after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing at Songad in Gujarat, while the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were residing at Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner No.4 was also working at Jabalpur while the petitioner No.5 was married in the year 2013 and was residing with her husband in Sagar District of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 had nothing to do with the marital life of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2. It is further contended that the petitioner No.1 realized that the respondent No.2 was suffering from Obsessive Compulsion Disorder (OCD) and therefore, she was in the habit of suspecting every act of the petitioner No.1. It is

claimed that the respondent No.2 gave birth to a son in the year 2013 and a daughter in the year 2015. However, the Obsessive Compulsion Disorder exacerbated. The petitioner No.1 therefore, sought medical aid and assistance to the respondent No.2. Later in July, 2017, she had developed rashes on the skin due to frequent washing of her hands. The respondent No.2 was treated by Dr. K.R. Krishna at Mysuru and Dr. Gyanendra Jha at Jabalpur for the Obsessive Compulsion Disorder suffered by her. Later she was treated by Dr. Rishi Dawar at Jabalpur between October 2017 and September 2018 and Dr. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Mysuru for Tuberculosis. It is contended that the petitioner No.1 was therefore, constrained to seek dissolution of marriage before Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Case No.336/2018. Later, the respondent No.2 left to her parents house during March, 2018. The petitioners therefore, contend that the entire case is replete with falsehood more particularly against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 who were not concerned with the marital life in any manner whatsoever and therefore, prays that the prosecution of the petitioners be halted.

• 7 -

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that all the petitioners in concert had demanded dowry from time to time and that the respondent No.2 had resisted all her desire to prosecute the petitioners only in the fond hope of saving the marriage. She contended that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have always stood by the petitioner No.1 and have tacitly encouraged the petitioner No.1 in not only demanding dowry but also in physically and mentally abusing the respondent No.2. She therefore, contended that the prosecution launched against the petitioners be permitted to be continued.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submitted that the complaint did contain the necessary ingredients to investigate an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as Section 498A of IPC.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

9. The instant complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2 with the respondent No.1 on 17.09.2018. However, the respondent No.2 did not disclose about the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage by the petitioner No.1 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, in Case No.336/2018. Assuming that the respondent No.2 was not aware of the proceedings in Case No.336/2018, a perusal of the entire complaint does not indicate any overt acts against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 constituting offences under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC. No doubt, the respondent No.2 has made allegations that large sums of money was paid in both cash and kind to the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 as dowry, but these amounts were allegedly paid from 13.02.2011 and no grievance of whatsoever nature was made before any authority. There is also no material placed by the respondent No.2 to indicate that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 had taken any dowry from the respondent No.2 and her parents. The petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were not residing with the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 at their matrimonial home in Surat or at Mysuru. Therefore, the claim that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 had committed any acts of violence against the respondent

No.2 cannot be believed. Therefore, it can only be said that the respondent No.2 had made an omnibus statement against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5. However, there are allegations in the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner No.1 used to physically and mentally abuse her which cannot be ruled out having regard to the alleged mental condition of the respondent No.2. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 even after having children from the marriage, are acting irresponsibly marring the future of their own lives and the lives of the hapless children. In that view of the matter, the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 is wholly unwarranted and deserves to be quashed.

10. Consequently, the petition is allowed in part. The prosecution of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.54/2018 pending trial before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is quashed.

However, the prosecution of the petitioner No.1 shall continue.

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

Sd/- JUDGE

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25