NAZIRKHAN MACHINGAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC No.2276/2016, pending on the file of JMFC I Court, Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and Section 34 of and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed the complaint on 19.03.2015 before the Mahila Police Station, Hubballi against the petitioners and accused No.1 her husband Firozkhan. She has alleged in the complaint that on 15.04.2019, she married accused 1-Firozkhan and accused 2 and 3 are his parents. Her parents have incurred Rs.15,00,000/- towards marriage expenses inclusive of gold ornaments and Dahej materials. After the marriage, when she went to the house of the husband at Santhoshnagar, Hubballi, parents of her husband did not al lowed her to come inside, as they did not approve the marriage of her with accused 1. Thereby accused 1. took a separate rented house for her at Akshay colony, Global Col lege, Near Shirur Park, Hubballi, where they stayed for about 8 and 9 months. She has further alleged that accused 2 and 3 visited the residence of the complainant and asked accused 1 to demand dowry from her and also gold from her parents. Thereafter, accused 1 started harassing her physically, demanding dowry. Accused 1 used to beat her demanding dowry. She has alleged that on 27.10.2019 at about 10.30 hours, al l the accused quarreled with her and driven her out from the house by coercing her to bring dowry. The police have recorded her statement on 19.03.2018 and registered the case against the petitioners and accused 1 on 20.03.2015. She has given further statement regarding the alleged payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. The police have also recorded the statement of certain witnesses and after completing the investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and accused 1 for the aforesaid offences and the case came to be registered in CC No.2276/2016 on the file of learned magistrate.

(3.) The petitioners have stated that the al legations are not against them. The petitioners at no point of time instigated her husband to bring money and gold. The police did not investigate the case in its proper perspective with regard to the allegations made in the complaint. The charge sheet witnesses CW3, CW7 and CW8 have stated that they heard about the incident from the father of the complainant. The complainant did not possess any material to show about the alleged injury suffered by her. The statement of the complainant saying that the petitioners did not al low her to come inside the house at Santhoshnagar, Hubballi and therefore accused 1 took her to rented house, shows that accused 1 and complainant were staying away from the petitioners. The complainant and her husband accuse 1 never stayed together with the petitioners in one roof . Therefore the initiation of the prosecution against the petitioners is abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.