SUBRAMANYA S. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 7 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.911/2022 (in Crime No.34/22 registered by Mangaluru Women Police) pending on the file of III JMFC Court, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A , 323 , 448 , 506 read with Sec. 149 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2-Shruthi, on 14/3/2022, the police registered a case. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant married to accused No.1 on 24/11/2016 and her father spent more than Rs.25.00 lakhs for the purpose of marriage, Rs.2.50 lakhs was given to accused No.1 as dowry by way of cash, 20 sovereign golden ornaments were given at the time of marriage. Five sovereign gold ornaments, out of which, two sovereign by way of chain, two sovereign by way of bracelet and one sovereign by way of finger ring, apart from suit, watch and other materials worth of Rs.15.00 lakhs, paid to accused No.1. Accused No.1 claimed to be the Assistant Manager in MRPL company at Managaluru. After the marriage, both accused No.1 and complainant lived together as husband and wife. Subsequently, accused No. 4 used to visit accused NO.1 and the complainant and used to instigate accused NO.1 and pinpricked, thereby accused NO.1 was quarreling with the complainant. Accused NO.3, the mother of accused No.1 also used to blame the complainant stating that she is dark in colour, her son might have got huge dowry, if he married somebody. Thereafter, the accused persons demanded additional dowry from the complainant, they harassed her physically and mentally. Accused Nos.3 and 4 always used to abet accused No.1. However, the complainant did not file any complaint in order to live peacefully. Subsequently, accused No.1 said to be constructed a house at Golgudde and thereafter, accused No.4, accused NO.5 and their daughter accused NO.6 came and resided in the upper floor of the house and once again, the quarrel started troubling the complainant. Subsequently, accused No.1 demanded a site at Bengaluru, when the father of complainant refused to give, they all harassed her physically and mentally. Subsequently, accused No.7 who is said to be brother-in-law of accused No.1 also demanded the complainant to transfer the site measuring 60 x 40 ft. to the name of accused No.1 from the father of the complainant as he is having a site at Bengaluru. After registering FIR, the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet, which is under challenge.