Jayamma vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for R1 - State. Perused the records.

There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent who are the Mother-in-law and Daughter-in-law to each other. There is also no dispute that the marriage between second respondent and her husband took place on 23.6.1988. It is stated in the complaint that at the time of marriage, the father of the second respondent has given Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- worth household articles, 8 gram gold ring, a suit to the husband of the second respondent and also by spending Rs. 3 lakhs her father performed the marriage. At that time, her father also gave one gold necklace, one chain, two pairs of ear studs, one pair of silver lamps and one silver Ganapathi idol and other silver articles. It is stated that at that time, all these articles were asked by her husband and therefore, at the instance of the husband of the second respondent, these articles were also given to her husband as well as the second respondent. There is no allegations in the complaint that petitioner has demanded all those articles. It is also alleged in the said complaint that after the marriage, the petitioner as well as her son have demanded Rs. 8 lakhs dowry from the second respondent. In this context, it is alleged that A1 has always demanding for money persistently and also threatening the second respondent with dire consequences of killing her and her family members. The complaint averments also disclose that in the year 2002, she left the matrimonial home and started living in the house of her mother. Even after she started living with her mother, whenever, the husband met her in the family functions, he used to abuse her with filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences and also making allegations that he had the second marriage taken second already. This particular aspect has been disclosed by the second respondent to the petitioner and also mother of the second respondent both of them have directed her not to disclose this fact in order to save the status of both the families. On the basis of the above said allegations, the Police have registered a case u/s. 498A, 506 of IPC read with Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Looking to the above said factual aspects, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, there is no specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to the payment of dowry at the time of marriage or earlier to the marriage because the entire allegations are made against the husband and it is specifically stated that at his instance, the father of the second respondent has given all those articles to the bride and the bridegroom. Subsequent to the respondent No. 2 started residing with her mother from 2002, there is absolutely no allegations so as to attract Section 506 of IPC so far as this petitioner is concerned. The entire allegations are made against her husband. Only one passing sentence is made that she was also demanding Rs. 8 lakhs from the second respondent. Even accepting that, this was happened prior to 2002 and the complaint is filed on 4.6.2009 nearly after lapse of seven years.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the said sentence is not sufficient so as to attract any of the provisions invoked by the Police so far as this petitioner is concerned. Even accepting that in any one of the instance she also joined the hands with the husband of the second respondent to demand the said amount, but the allegations shows that persisting demand was made by the husband only. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made in the FIR which contains the complete allegations against A1, therefore there is no sufficient allegations in order to attract the above said provisions, so far as the petitioner is concerned.

It is worth to note here the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Chandralekha and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, , wherein it was held that-

"The allegations against in-laws are extremely general in nature. No specific role attributed to them - Respondent after marriage residing with her husband and not with the appellant in-laws - proceedings against appellants in-laws is an abuse of process of law - therefore, quashed."

In another ruling of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court held that-

"Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

Therefore, in my opinion, the second part of the guidelines is aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case i.e. to say the allegations made in the FIR in this case as narrated above are so absurd and inherently improbable that petitioner has committed any offence even to attract any provision u/s. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, or u/s 498(A) of I.P.C.

Therefore, I do not find any strong reason to order for continuation of the proceedings against this petitioner. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in CC No. 3111/2010 on the file of the CMM Court, Bangalore as against this petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and u/s. 3 & 4 of DP Act are hereby quashed.