Maheshwari vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—In these two petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court and sought for quashing of the proceedings in Hubli North Division Women Police Station Crime No. 45/2013 pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & CJM (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

In the First Information Report submitted by the victim by name Smt. Swetha W/o. Siddalingaswami Hiremath, she has specifically stated that, she was given in marriage to said Siddalingaswami Hiremath on 24.04.2011. At the time of marriage the accused persons have demanded and taken Rs. 1,00,000/- and 150 gms of gold as dowry. In the first information report, it is alleged that, after marriage, her husband and other inmates of the husband''s house, particularly, the petitioners, have been ill-treating and harassing the said lady suspecting her fidelity and also demanding more money and gold articles. In the complaint, she has specifically mentioned two or three instances, wherein it is alleged that, all the petitioners conjointly have ill-treated and harassed her in demand of more money and also gold articles.

It cannot be said, at this stage, that the allegations made in the first Information Report do not constitute any offence at all. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the investigation at this stage, which is at the threshold, cannot be interfered by the Court. Though the learned Counsel tried to convince me that the petitioners are nowhere concerned with the alleged offences and there is no specific allegation made in the First Information Report, but failed in this attempt, as at this stage, no cogent and convincing materials are placed to draw any inference.

Insofar as the first information report to the police is concerned, in my opinion, it could not be an encyclopedia. On broad reading of the first information report, if it discloses commission of any offence, then investigation by police should not be stopped. In the event of police, after investigation, find out that no allegations are proved against the petitioners, the police may file a proper report to the jurisdictional magistrate. Only after going through the contents of the charge sheet, if Magistrate finds that there are materials to take cognizance, then he could take cognizance.

Therefore, at this stage, I am of the opinion, the petition is too premature and it cannot be considered. However, a liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court in future, if really aggrieved by further proceedings in the Court.

With these observations, the above said petitions stand dismissed.

In view of disposal of the main petitions, I.A. 1/2013 in both the cases do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.