STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BASAVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The three accused who are respondents in this appeal were charge sheeted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, for an offence under Section 498-AIPC alleging that they were demanding dowry of Rs. 10,000/- from her even three years after marriage as also a Television set. They even threatened that on her failure to obey A-1 would take another wife in marriage. Cruelty was alleged against them for this reason. Before the trial Court a compromise petition came to be filed contending that A-1 respondent-1 and his wife Shanlhakumari CW-1 were cohabiting cordially for about six months before the impugned order came to be passed on 24-5-1989. The prosecution opposed according permission for compounding as the offence is a non-compoundable one. The trial Court at the outset observed that strictly speaking it docs not amount to demanding dowry in as much as it was being made nearly three years after marriage and after a child was born to them. Therefore on merits it remained to be considered if it really amounted to a demand of dowry. It appears it is a joint family in which the 1st accused and his parents as well as CW-1 Shanthakumari were living under one roof. In the course of its order the trial Court observed thus:

(3.) The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chand v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 also referred to by the trial Court in its Judgment. At paras 2 and 3 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows: