Sri. Hucchappa and Others vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J. - Petitioners who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in Crime No. 27/2012 of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w Section 34 of IPC, have filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

One Nagaraju, S/o Doddaiah of Shankarnagar, Bangalore, filed a complaint on 31.01.2012 before Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bangalore. It is alleged in the complaint that he had three daughters namely N. Hamsalatha, N. Jeevitha and N. Harshitha. On 19.04.2009, the marriage of her eldest daughter N. Hamsalatha was performed with accused No. 1-D.M. Ramakrishna, the second son of Mariyappa-accused No. 4. D.M. Ramakrishna is working in High Court in Recruitment Branch. At the time of the marriage, he was presented with 250 grams of gold, Rs. 75,000/- cash as dowry as demanded by Ramakrishna and his parents Mariyappa and Mayamma. Out of the marriage, a female baby was born. The baby was aged 1 year and 9 months at the time of the incident in question. Ever since the date of marriage, the husband and in-laws of Hamsalatha were not satisfied with the quantum of dowry given at the time of the marriage. They were also suspecting her chastity and thereby she was subjected to constant ill-treatment and harassment. Many a times panchayaths were also held by the elders, which did not materialize. The husband and in-laws continued to treat her with cruelty and used to harass her. They also used to abuse her alleging that (Vernacular matter). They were forcing her to bring more dowry and Rs. 5,00,000/- cash since she gave birth to a female child. She was also named that if she failed to bring the dowry as demanded by them they would finish her. She approached her parents on 30.01.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. and narrated the demand for dowry, ill-treatment and harassment given to her by her husband and in-laws. Somehow, her parents pacified her, they took her to the matrimonial house and requested her husband and in-laws to treat her properly. Despite all these, on 31.01.2012 at about 10.38 a.m. she committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. Immediately, the parents were informed over the phone by the neighbour that their daughter is not keeping good health and were asked to come immediately. Her parents went to the house of the accused where they saw that the grandchild was weeping inside the room which was locked. It was broke open and found that their daughter Hamsalatha committed suicide. A complaint came to be lodged against her husband and in-laws. Crime came to be registered.

After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in C.C. No. 16642/2012 on the file of 7th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IKT and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 4 have filed this petition to quash the proceedings initiated as against them.

The submission of the learned Senior counsel Sri. Ravi B. Naik, appearing for the petitioners is that these petitioners who are the in-laws of the deceased have been unnecessarily roped into without there being any material against them just to harass them. Learned counsel also submitted that the main accused-the husband of deceased has not filed the petition to quash the proceedings, these petitioners are in noway responsible for the suicide committed by deceased-Hamsalatha and under such circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners would amount to abuse of process of the Court.

learned Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that not only in the complaint filed by the father of the victim the allegations of the demand for dowry are levelled against these petitioners, but in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the witnesses most of them are neighbourers have attributed the demand for dowry and the harassment and ill-treatment given to the deceased by her husband and in-laws and as such Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against these petitioners and accused No. 1 the husband of the deceased and in that event, the question of quashing the proceedings against these petitioners does not arise.

It is true that if we run through the averments made out in the complaint, it is evident that the allegations of demand for dowry, harassment and ill-treatment are not only levelled against her husband but also the father and mother of accused No. 1. It is also borne out from the complaint that on 30.01.2012 one day prior to the commission of the suicide, the deceased went to the house of the parents and narrated about the demand for dowry, ill-treatment and harassment given to her. The statement of the witnesses namely Lakshman, Lakshmamma Mahimakka, M. Harish would also go to show that there used to be frequent quarrel in the house of the deceased and one day when there was quarrel and when they heard hue and cry these witnesses went to the house and enquired with Hamsalatha as to what happened. She told that her husband his elder brother Hucchappa/accused No. 2, her mother-in-law-Smt. Mayamma/accused No. 5, her father-in-law Mariyappa/accused No. 4, her brother-in-law Puttaraju/accused No. 3 were forcing her to go to her parents house and bring money in order to purchase a site in Bangalore City as the dowry given at the time of her marriage was not sufficient. She also told that they were suspecting her fidelity and they used to constantly abuse her and ill-treat her. Their statement further would go to show that the deceased brought it to the notice of her parents and her father along with his friends had come to her matrimonial house and pacified her. It is evident from the statement of these witnesses that on 31.01.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. when they were in their house, they heard hue and cry from the house of deceased-Hamasalatha. Immediately, they rushed to the house and saw the accused No. 1 her husband was threatening his wife to go and die in her parents house since she did not bring dowry and he also told her that he would contact another marriage and that he lost everything in his life ever since he married her and by so saying he went away from the house and the witnesses somehow pacified deceased-Hamsalatha and went away. Their statement would further go to show that within half an hour, they saw the number of people gathered near the house of Hamsalatha. They also went there and observed that the house was locked from inside, a child was weeping inside the house, the father of the deceased came and broke open the house and saw that his daughter Hamsalatha committed suicide by hanging.

Thus, from reading the statement of the witnesses, it is rather difficult to come to the conclusion that no allegations are made against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, though it can be said that there are no allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 the brother-in-laws of the deceased. Thus, from the closer scrutiny of the entire material on record, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the brother-in-laws of the deceased have been unnecessarily dragged into this case though there is nothing against them.

As such, the petition filed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 2 and 3) is hereby allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 16642/2012 on the file of the 7th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in so far they relate to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos. 2 and 3, are hereby quashed.

The petition filed by petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 (accused Nos. 4 and 5) is hereby rejected.