Manjula vs State Of Karnataka & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.1239/2018

by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Davanagere, dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable

under Sections 498A, 506 and 114 of IPC.

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint with the police making the allegation against this petitioner and

other accused persons that the petitioner had participated during the marriage talks and demanded and accepted the dowry. After the marriage, the

complainant was subjected for additional dowry and both mental and physical harassment and she was also caused life threat. The police after the

investigation filed the charge sheet. The petitioner herein, who has been arraigned as accused No.5 had filed the application for discharge and the

learned Magistrate after considering the material on record, vide order dated 30.12.2019 rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the

present petition is filed before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in the complaint, only an omnibus allegation is made against the

petitioner herein and there is no specific overt act allegations against her. Learned counsel also would contend that the learned Judge has not

considered the material on record in its entirety and has rejected the application only on the ground that at the instigation of the petitioner and others,

the offences are committed. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incriminating material collected during the

investigation in proof of involvement of accused No.5 has to be tested during the course of the trial. It is the further contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that she was undergoing treatment at the hospital at that relevant point of time and hence, she was unavailable. Hence, the very

approach of the trial Court in rejecting the application is erroneous.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to the notice of this Court that the specific allegations are made against this petitioner that

though she is a married sister of the husband of respondent No.2, she herself had participated in the marriage talks and demanded the dowry. In para

Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6, the specific allegations are made against the petitioner that she had participated in the marriage talks and received the money as

dowry. She subjected the complainant for harassment and also instigated others to subject the complainant for both mental and physical harassment.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State also would contend that the specific allegations are made against the petitioner

and the witnesses, who have been examined by the investigating officer also made the statement about the very involvement of this petitioner in

demanding the dowry and also the additional dowry. The witnesses, who had participated in the marriage talks had also made the statement in support

of the same before the investigating officer.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent and the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the material available on record, the statement of witnesses are in corroboration to the

allegations made in the complaint. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no specific allegations against this

petitioner and only an omnibus allegation is made therein, cannot be accepted. Taking note of the averment made in para No.2, the specific allegations

are made against this petitioner that she had participated in the marriage talks and demanded the dowry amount. An allegation of demanding Rs.10

lakhs has been made in para No.3 of the complaint.

Having taken note of the material collected by the investigating officer and also the statement of the witnesses, it is not a fit case to exercise the

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no material is placed before the trial Court to

face the trial cannot be accepted. The Trial Court while rejecting the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. discussed in para Nos.12 and 13 that on

perusal of the material collected in its entirety and also the statement of the witnesses it requires trial and not a ground for discharge.

Having taken note of the material available on record, particularly, the statement of witnesses and also the allegations made in the complaint, the

truthfulness of such statement and allegations made in the complaint has to be ascertained only during the course of the trial. Hence, it is not a fit case

to discharge the accused and it requires trial as held by the trial Court. I do not find any merit in the petition to quash the order of the Trial Court dated

30.12.2019.

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby rejected.

(ii) Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.