Court: Karnataka High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Subhash B. Adi
Sadiqulla & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Ors. On 7 June 2012
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Quashing of proceedings — Cruelty — Prima facie case against accused No. 1 husband, accused Nos. 2 and 3 father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively — Accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 brother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law residing at different places — Without any specific allegations against accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 charge-sheet filed against them by police — Proceedings qua accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 quashed.
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. They have sought for quashing of the charge sheet dated 27.12.2007 filed against the present petitioners in C.C. No.35/2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Davanagere.
2. It is submitted that the charge sheet is given up against accused Nos.5, 8 and 9. Now, the petition is confined to petitioners 1 to 4, 6 and 7. 4
3. Respondent No.3 is the wife of Petitioner No.1. She filed a complaint before the Women Police Station, Davanagere, inter alia alleging that she gave birth to a female child on 16.3.2006. Her in-laws were not satisfied with the female child born to her. They started harassing her and also demanded dowry. In this regard, they abused and drove her out of the house. Police registered the case in Crime No.36/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.
4. On investigation, Police has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and 7 and has given up against accused Nos.5, 8 and 9. As against filing of the charge sheet petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments made in the complaint do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC., as there is no dowry demand and reason for harassment is stated to be the 5 birth of female child. He also submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing at about 80 Kms. away from the place of stay of the complainant and they could not have come and assaulted her.
6. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry to find out as to whether accused Nos.2 and 3 are staying away from the place of stay of the complainant and whether they could have harassed the complainant. The complaint discloses that there is prima facie case against accused No.1 – husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 – father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant. However, accused No.4 is the brother-in-law, accused No.5 is the sister- in-law and accused No.7 is the husband of accused No.5. Accused No.5 is also the brother-in-law of the complainant. Accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 are not residing with accused No.1. They are married and they are residing at different places. The allegations, as they are, on the face of it, constitute offence against accused Nos.1 to 3. However, without any 6 specific allegations against accused Nos.4, 6 and 7, the charge sheet has been filed against them by the Police. Moreover, brother-in-law cannot be a close relative to the complainant to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC.
7. Having regard to the same, I find that, in so far as accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 are concerned, proceedings could be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. Proceedings against accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 in C.C. No.35/2007 stand quashed. Proceedings shall go on against accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. The trial Court is directed to expedite trial as early as possible not later than eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment