NAGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.856/2024, arising out of Crime No.270/2023 registered by Manvi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Ss. 109, 323, 498(A), 504, 506 read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for brevity, 'the IPC'] and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for brevity, 'the D.P. Act'], pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Manvi, Raichur,

(2.) The abridged facts of the case are that, complainanat/respondent No.2 married accused No.1- Sabjali i.e., son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 23/11/2017 and the same was registered on 24/11/2017. After the marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 started to lead marital life at Manikprabhu Layout, Raichur and both lived cordially for a period of two years six months. Later, accused No.1 addicted to bad vices and used to consume liquor and use to abuse and assault her. As such, he harassed her both physically and mentally. He also insisted her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000.00 and threatened her that if she failed to fulfill his demand, he would contract second marriage. According to her, for such harassment of accused No.1, the petitioners i.e., father-in-law, mother-in- law and other family members are also responsible and they instigated him. It is further stated that on 13/10/2023 accused No.1 assaulted her and thrown her out of the matrimonial home. Later, she started to reside in her parental house. Subsequently, on 9/10/2023 accused No.1 visited her parental house and quarreled with her and her parents and assaulted them. Hence, she lodged the complaint against her husband and petitioners on 13/10/2023, which was registered in Crime No.270/2023 for the aforesaid offences. Later, respondent No.1 Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against all the five accused persons by arranging these petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Though notice is served to respondent No.2, she remained absent.