IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 88 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NANDINI NALLAPPAN
W/O N. LEKSHMANAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT 30 STRUDEE ROAD
KERRISDALE NO 14-06
SINGAPORE – 207 852.
ALSO AT 3039
HARIYANTHA SANGEETH
1ST FLOOR, 13TH MAIN ROAD
ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI
TAMIL NADU – 600 102.
2. SMT. ALAMELU NALLAPPAN
W/O SETHURAMAN NALLAPAN
R/AT 30 STRUDEE ROAD
KERRISDALE 14-06
SINGAPORE – 207 852
ALSO AT 3039
HARIYANATHSABNGEETH
1ST FLOOR, 13TH MAIN ROAD
ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI
TAMIL NADU – 600 102.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAKSHIT K. S., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY EAST ZONE WOMENS P.S
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 066.
NC: 2024:KHC:20639
CRL.P No. 88 of 2023
2. SMT. SWARNA
W/O A.M. GANESH
RA/T NO.002, INDUS VOGUE
APARTMENT, 1ST MAIN ROAD
VENKATAREDDY LAYOUT
KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK
BENGALURU – 560 095.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI MELANIE SEBASTIAN, ADV. FOR R-2
SRI THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR AND INFORMATION DATED 22.09.2022 PREFERRED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE BEARING CR.NO.163/2022 OF EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE
STATION, ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF
IPC WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE ARRAINGED AS
ACCUSED NO.4 AND 9 VIDE (ANNEXURE-A AND B).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioners – accused Nos.4 and 9 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.163/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Sri. Rakshith K. S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior counsel along with NC: 2024:KHC:20639 Sri. Melanie Sebastian, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. Thejesh P, learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:-
Accused No.1 and the complainant are husband and wife. It transpires that the marriage has taken place on 07.02.2022. It further transpires that the relationship between husband – accused No.1 and the complainant flounders. On such floundering of the relationship, the impugned crime comes to be registered in Crime No.163/2022 for the aforesaid offences while accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are all members of the family or the mother-in-law or father-in-law as the case could be. These petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.4 and 9. The relationship between first petitioner – accused No.4 even according to the complainant is she is a paramour of the husband – accused No.1 and second petitioner – accused No.9 is the mother of accused No.4 – first petitioner.
4. This Court in terms of its order dated 22.02.2023 has stayed further investigation against these petitioners and the said interim order is subsisting even as on date.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition with particular reference to the complaint would seek to demonstrate that there is not even a sprinkling reference to these petitioners which would touch upon the NC: 2024:KHC:20639 ingredients of any of the offences so alleged against the petitioners. It is his submission that without any rhyme or reason, these petitioners are drawn into the web of investigation in Crime No.163/2022.
6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel Sri. Tomy Sebastan appearing for the complainant – respondent No.2 would seek to refute the submissions contended that the police after investigation have filed charge sheet against all other accused. The offences are grave and what is found in the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate that first petitioner is responsible for all the happenings in the life of accused No.1 or the family members. While insofar as the mother of first petitioner is concerned, learned Senior counsel would accept that there is no allegation that can touch upon any of the offences so alleged.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The link and the dates and events are all a matter of record. Since, the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint not, in its entirety but insofar as it is germane to the NC: 2024:KHC:20639 lis. The reference made to these petitioners in the complaint reads as follows:-
“ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü JAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝ ZÉ£ÉÊ£À £ÀA.3039, ºÀjºÀAvï ¸ÀAVÃvï 1£Éà ªÀĺÀr, 13£Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, CuÁÚ£ÀUÀgÀ ªÁ¹ ²æêÀÄw £ÀA¢¤AiÀĪÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ vÀÄA¨Á C£ÉÆåãÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀÄA¨Á ºÀwÛgÀ«zÀÝAvÉ ªÀwð¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, zÀÆgÀªÁt PÀgÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, NqÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀëªÁV UÀªÀĤ¹ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£ÀUÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀjAzÀ w½¢zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ²æêÀÄw £ÀA¢¤UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ½AzÀ PÉ£ÀqÁzÀ°èzÁÝ£É. CªÀj§âgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁVzÁÝgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀuÉñÀ, £ÀA¢¤ UË¥ÀåªÁV ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ MAzÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÀA¢¤UÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ UÀuÉñï gÀªÀgÉà DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ w½zÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¢üPÀÄÌvÉÆÃZÀzÀAvÁV F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, CvÉÛ ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢ü¹ EzÉ®è ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÉÛ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀA¢¤AiÀĪÀÄgÀ CvÉÛAiÀĪÀgÀ §½ «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV CªÀgÀÄ £ÀA¢¤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀuÉñï gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ §UÉÎ vÀªÀÄä C¼À®£ÀÄß vÉÆÃrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¤AzÀ £ÀA¢¤UÉ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀjUÉ w½¸À¯ÁV CªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄà ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ªÁgÀ ZÉ£ÉÊUÉ §AzÀÄ UÀuÉñïgÀªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¯ÁV D ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉUÉ UÀuÉÃ±ï ºÁdgÁUÀzÉ vÀ¦à¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ¥Àr¹ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ZÉ£ÉÊ£À¯Éèà ©lÄÖ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄgÀÄ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ vÀ£ÀUÉ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É dgÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Á¢UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ, DgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® £Á£ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ®UÉÎÃd£ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §AzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É NC: 2024:KHC:20639 ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Á¢UÉ ºÉÆÃV®è, CªÀgÀÄ £ÀA¢¤AiÉÆA¢UÉ «±ÁR¥ÀlÖtPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ w½¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ «±ÁR¥ÀlÖt¢AzÀ 15£Éà vÁjRÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄßöKPÉ »ÃUÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄw¢ÝÃAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß gÀÆ«Ä£À°è PÉüÀ¯ÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÉÆßnÖUÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É.”
9. A perusal at the said references in the complaint would indicate an affair between accused No.1 and first petitioner. Therefore, it cannot but be said that the first petitioner was a paramour. It is settled principle of law that a paramour of an accused cannot be dragged into proceedings under Section 498A of IPC as the said accused would not become a relative or a member of the family as is necessary under Section 498A of IPC thus, tumbles down the offence under Section 498A of IPC qua the first petitioner.
10. There are other offences also alleged. If the other offences alleged are pitted against what is narrated in the complaint, none of the ingredients of any of the offences can be found against the first petitioner – accused No.4 as the other offences are ones under Sections 323, 324, 307, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC. There is not even a titter of foundation laid in the complaint qua those offences against the first petitioner. Offences against first petitioner are therefore loosely laid. Second petitioner, the mother of first petitioner is on the face of it unnecessarily dragged into these proceedings as not even a sentence of semblance of ingredients being present qua the offences NC: 2024:KHC:20639 so alleged. Therefore, if further proceedings are permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of process of law.
11. Learned Senior counsel has placed entire charge sheet filed against other accused in the crime. The findings rendered herein would not in any way influence or bind any of the trial against any of the accused in the said proceedings.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.163/2022 registered by East Zone Women Police Station, Pulakeshinagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, pending on the file of VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed, qua the petitioners.
SD/-