RAMAPRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by petitioners /Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8792/2015 pending on the file of the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners / Accused Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 / complainant and the learned HCGP for the State. The petitioners herein / Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the second respondent / complainant namely Smt. Shruthi Antapnal.

(3.) It transpires from the case of the prosecution that the complaint was filed by the complainant Smt. Shruthi Antapnal, the second respondent herein alleging that she had married one Mukund Ramprasad and their marriage was performed on 30.11.2008 at Bangalore as per the customs prevailing in their society. Immediately after marriage, she began residing with her husband at her matrimonial home. But however, after marriage, it is stated that her husband and in laws started ill-treating her and were causing intolerable mental torture. Though at the time of marriage talks they did not make any dowry demands, this changed gradually and they had demanded that all the expenditure required to be borne by her parents as regards engagement and marriage. Further, her parents had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- towards engagement. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioners herein / her in-laws had demanded everything to be of their choice and her parents had fulfilled all the demands in the fond hope that their daughter would be happy in her in-laws house. That the entire expenditure of the marriage such as marriage hall, jewellery, decorations, transportation, etc., amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- was borne by the second respondent's parents. Immediately after marriage, that the second petitioner / accused No.3 had discontinued the services of the house maid and had forced the second respondent to do all the household chores saying that it would save the money and it was the duty of the daughter-in-law to do all the household work. They had also demanded her to quit her job as a Software Engineer, which she refused, being one of the reasons for them to ill-treat her. Further, they had started forcing her to ask for the daughter's share in her father's house, to which the complainant had refused. However, they had forced her several times to give them the money that she earned and was saving and accordingly, she had also paid several amounts by way of cheques in favour of her husband Mukund and mother in law Padma Prasad, which is detailed in a Tabular column in paragraph 7 of her complaint. But however, the harassment is said to have continued and it is stated that accused no.1 had even recorded conversations between herself and her husband both public and private and also conversations with strangers about their marriage and would show it to his mother and they would then consult lawyers and then prepare as to how to terminate Shruthi Antapnal's marriage with Mukund. Her complaint consist of seven sheets and in the last page of her complaint she has specifically stated in her hand-writing that the delay in filing her complaint against him was thinking that Accused No.1 would change his behaviour but she is filing the complaint since she did not find any improvement in him. Hence, she had requested the Station House Officer, Jnanabharathi P.S., Bangalore, to take necessary legal action against them in C.C.No.8792/2015 arising out of Cr.No.369/2013 registered by the Jnanabharathi P.S., Bangalore, for the offences reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the police. These are all the allegations made in the complaint filed by Shruthi Antapnal / Respondent No.2.