MADHU BHANDARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 4 in CC No. 681 of 2008 on the file of CJM, Bangalore, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal complaint which is registered under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 so far as she is concerned. Admittedly, this criminal complaint is by the second respondent, who is none other than the sister-in-law of accused 4. The case of complainant-second respondent is that she is legally wedded wife of one Ajay Pandey/accused 1, the younger brother of petitioner and son of accused 2 and 3 in the aforesaid criminal proceeding. It is her specific case that accused 1 to 4 ill-treated her, subjected her to dowry demand and also there was threat to her life by the accused. In that behalf, a complaint which is filed by her on 28-10-2007 is registered in Crime No. 156 of 2007 for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is stated that thereafter, the matter was referred to investigation by the police and the police in turn filed charge-sheet for the very offences on 4-2-2008. Subsequently, Crime No. 156 of 2007 is registered as CC No. 681 of 2008. Accused 4 in said proceeding has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the same, on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not directly refer to the demand of dowry or ill-treatment by petitioner against complainant-second respondent except that she had joined the husband, father and mother-in-law of complainant in scolding the complainant.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as second respondent-complainant. Perused the complaint as well as further statement, which is recorded on behalf of complainant and her father on 29-10-2007. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the allegation made against the petitioner is that she was abusing the complainant in abusive and derogatory language. Except that there is no other allegation as against the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would try to rely on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 AIR(SC) 1989 to substantiate the petition filed by the co-accused seeking quashing. The relevant portion reads as under:

(3.) On going through the aforesaid finding of the Apex Court under similar circumstances, this Court find that the accusation made against fourth accused would not attract the ingredients under Section 498-A of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As such, the charge-sheet which is filed against her in Crime No. 156 of 2007 is erroneous and the same is required to be quashed. In that view of the matter, this criminal petition is allowed and the charges that are framed against the fourth accused in CC No. 681 of 2008 are hereby quashed. While doing so, it is made clear that the ingredients available on record would prima facie establish the offences alleged against the accused 1 to 3. Therefore, the proceeding as against them shall continue unobstructedly.