AMIT AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND RUCHI ALOK MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. 2/2013 is filed for amendment of cause title filed for amendment of cause title and I.A. 3/2013 for raising additional grounds. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 seeks to file objections to the same, however, having regard to the nature of the relief sought, in that I.A. 2/2013 seeking amendment of the cause -title, is only of a formal nature, the same is allowed. Insofar as I.A. 3/2013 is concerned, as the petitioner would still have to substantiate the additional grounds raised, the same is also allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent on merits, it is to be seen that the present petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos. 4 to 8 in a criminal case instituted by the second respondent, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C. ™ for brevity). It was alleged that her marriage was performed with Accused No. 1 on 2.6.2011 at Tiwaripur, Bithali, Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh State. It was alleged that her parents had given gifts and other valuables to Accused No. 1. She had then joined the accused No. 1 in her matrimonial home. It is claimed by the second respondent that Accused No. 1 had revealed that he was forced to marry her by his parents and therefore, he was not at all inclined to share his life with the respondent and had started to ill -treat her. The other accused were also demanding that she gets more dowry from her parental home. As the harassment had escalated, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home at Hubli. It is the further case of Respondent No. 2 that the present petitioners had followed her along with Accused Nos. 1 to 3 to Hubli and had come to her parental home on 8.7.2012 and had abused her, her parents and had demanded dowry in order to take her back to the matrimonial home. It is on these allegations that the present petitioners are also named as the accused. Hence, the present petition is filed claiming that though these petitioners are related to Accused No. 1, they are not at all residing at Mumbai where the matrimonial home of the respondent is situated and the only persons who are residing there were Accused No. 1 and his parents The present petitioners 2 to 5 are residing in Uttar Pradesh, whereas Petitioner No. 1 is residing in Mumbai, but not along with Accused No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, but in a different area altogether. Therefore, there was hardly any contact among these petitioners and respondent No. 2 or her husband. The allegation that they had all come along with Accused No. 1 and abused and demanded dowry, is sought to be supported by the statement made by a neighbourer of Respondent No. 2 and other relatives, whose statements have been recorded. The present petitioners though related to Accused No. 1, have been known to the family of the respondent only after the marriage of Respondent No. 2 with the Accused No. 1. It cannot be readily accepted that not only the family members of Respondent No. 2 were familiar with the present petitioners to name each of their father and also to furnish their addresses and to remember their names, but it is even more difficult to accept that the neighbours who are said to have been invited by the father of Respondent No. 2 to come over to their house when these petitioners along with Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had come to Hubli to make demands on Respondent No. 2 and her parents and to abuse them, to also have furnished the details of each of these petitioners apart from the other accused, including their age and the names of their respective parents, which is not what would be accepted of neighbours to be aware of, unless it is information furnished by Respondent No. 2 in order to enable the said witnesses to support her case. Therefore, it cannot be said on the basis of the statements made by the relatives of Respondent No. 2 and her neighbours that it could be established prima facie as to these petitioners having joined Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and having come all the way from Mumbai and Uttar Pradesh to make demands on her parents and Respondent No. 2 for more dowry, and to abuse her and her "parents.

(2.) THEREFORE , on the face of it, this court is of the firm opinion that no prima facie case has been made out of any such involvement of the present petitioners, as alleged by Respondent No. 2. Her case insofar as her husband and his parents are concerned which is pending consideration however, may be accepted provided the Respondent No. 2 is also in a position to establish the case against them. But, insofar as these petitioners are concerned, on the face of it, it is the opinion of this court that no such case -can be accepted in the normal course. It would be wholly unusual for the neighbours to furnish such details with such clarity, unless it has been supplied by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the proceedings as against the present petitioners stand quashed.