E.R. NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The facts are as follows: It is alleged by one Basappa, the father -in -law of the present petitioner, that the petitioner had married his daughter Sharmila on 17.02.2014 at Chitradurga. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner had demanded dowry and therefore, he had provided a cash of Rs.10 lakh, 40 thola gold, 2 kilograms of silver, and Rs.70,000/ - worth almirah and utensils and performed the marriage spending Rs.9 lakh. After the marriage, his daughter was barely happy and lived with the petitioner for about three months. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his mother had started quarrelling with Sharmila abusing her that she is not able to cook properly and picked up quarrels on the slightest pretext and also complained that she had not brought sufficient dowry and that she was to bring more dowry. This was brought to the attention of the complainant who had visited the petitioner and his mother and advised them not to harass the daughter since sufficient dowry had been provided and she was also pursuing her education as an undergraduate and had taken up third and fourth semester B.E. examinations. However, it is stated that Sharmila had hung herself while she was in parent's house on 07.09.2015 and on the allegation that the complainant's daughter was driven to commit suicide only because of the constant harassment both physically and mentally by the petitioner and his mother that a case has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner having approached the Court below, the same has been rejected on the ground that the investigation was still on and if bail was granted, there was possibility of the petitioner tampering the prosecution evidence and accordingly, the same was rejected. In this background, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the allegations are without any basis. The fact that the daughter of the complainant was the wife of the petitioner is not denied. She hardly lived with the petitioner for about 15 days and for the reasons best known to them had withdrawn from their marital life leading to a situation where she did not turn up even after repeated requests by the petitioner to join him. Thereafter, he was constrained to issue a legal notice. Notwithstanding the same, the daughter of the complainant having committed suicide cannot be attributed to any harassment by the petitioner and his mother.