FAIROJA @ FIROJA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) n this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners are seeking quashing of all further proceedings in CC No.1653/2018 (in Crime No.259/2017) on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 6 in this case. The case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 herein by name Smt. Parveen Bhanu. The allegations in the complaint are to the effect that her marriage took place on 19/4/2009 with one Jams hid, who is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and nephew of petitioner No.5. The further allegation is that at the time of the marriage, on account of the demands made by the accused, cash dowry and ornaments were given. Thereafter, she was treated properly only for about one year and she gave birth to a female child. There are allegations in the complaint that ever since she gave birth to a female child, the husband-accused No.1 and rest of the accused started ill-treating, harassing and humiliating her for giving birth to a female child and further demanded for additional dowry saying that since she had given birth to a female child additional dowry is required for securing her future. It is also alleged in the complaint that for purchasing auto rickshaw for accused No.1 a sum of Rs.40,000/- was demanded and taken from the mother of respondent No.2. The further allegation is that about one year prior to the complaint, respondent No.2 gave birth to another female child and the accused started harassing and torturing her for giving birth to a female child. There are also allegations of harassment and ill-treatment by the accused to her. After investigation, police have filed a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and paternal uncle of the husband of respondent No.2 and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations made in the complaint. He also contended that no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners in the complaint and therefore, charge sheet filed is wholly groundless and the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.