LALITHA SANCHETI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners who are arrayed as accused nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.25556/2017 arising out of Crime No.10/2017 registered by V.V.Puram Police for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.25556/2017 pending before the XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

(2.) Brief facts of the case: Respondent no.2 Smt. Unnati Vinay Sancheti is none other than the daughter-in-law of petitioners 1 & 2 and sister-in-law of petitioner no.3, and petitioners 4 & 5 are the brothers of petitioner no.1. Respondent no.2 along with her husband had filed a suit in O.S.No.7832/2016 against her in-laws and so also other relatives seeking injunction in respect of the house property owned and occupied by petitioners 2 & 3. In the said suit, the interim applications filed in IA Nos.1 & 2 by respondent no.2 was rejected on 07.09.2017 holding that respondent no.2 was not in possession of the apartment building and it was in fact petitioner no.3 along with their family which was residing in the said premises. Thereafter, respondent no.2 has lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, based on which Crime No.10/2017 came to be registered.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized with the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and that during March 2012 at the time of marriage talks, accused nos.1 to 5 demanded gold ornaments weighing 1/2 kg, silver articles weighing 20 kg be given to the husband of respondent no.2 and marriage was solemnized at Palace Grounds. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter, the father of respondent no.2 has given 300 gms gold ornaments and silver ornaments weighing 10 kgs to the husband of respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was also given towards marriage expenses. It is the further case of the prosecution that the husband of respondent no.2 purchased an apartment in the name of accused no.3 and that accused nos.1 to 5 demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards dowry and as respondent no.2 was not able to give the said amount, respondent no.2 and her husband were thrown out of the house by accused nos.1 to 5. With these allegations, the respondent-Police filed charge sheet against the petitioners.