CAUSE TITLE:
Mahalakshmi & Ors. V. The State of Karnataka & Anr
DATE OF ORDER:
30 November 2023
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N Bhatti
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Mahalaxmi & Ors.
Respondent: The State of Karnataka
SUBJECT:
According to the Supreme Court, a single occurrence by a husband's relative does not establish the existence of a criminal provision for cruelty if there is no proof of the relative's ongoing meddling in the marriage.
The criminal proceedings stemming from a FIR filed in Bengaluru against Mahalakshmi and others under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were quashed by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
- Section 498A IPC – A woman's husband or a relative of her husband abusing her.
- Section 506 IPC– Punishmemt For Criminal Intimidation.
- Section 3 (Dowry Prohibition Act,1961)-Penalty for giving or taking Dowry .
- Section 4 (Dowry Prohibition Act,1961)-Penalty for demanding Dowry.
BRIEF FACTS:
- On June 29, 2015, accused number one, Sarvan Kumar, and respondent number two, Rekha Bhaskaran, got married. Rekha Bhaskaran filed a written complaint, and as a result, on November 26, 2016, the Police Station – Halasurgate Women, District – Bangalore City, Karnataka, registered First Information Report No. 92 of 2016 for the offense that is punishable by Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A charge sheet dated July 20, 2017, was filed following an investigation.
- Following that, the trial court summoned the appellants, accused no. 1 (Sarvan Kumar), his father, accused no. 2 (Surendra Prasad), his mother, and accused no. 3 (Malathi).
- In order to have the charge sheet dated July 20, 2017, dismissed, the appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 19733. The contested ruling from March 21, 2019, dismissed the aforementioned petition.
- It is widely acknowledged that on May 2, 2013, accused No. 1 Sarvan Kumar's sister, appellant No. 1, Mahalakshmi, wed. She moved to Canada after getting married.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
- Whether the assertions made in the complaint are false and incorrect?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES
- Rekha Bhaskaran, the informant/respondent no. 2 in the complaint, claimed that on September 20, 2016, Mahalakshmi, the appellant no. 1, had thrown Rekha Bhaskaran's personal belongings in the trash after making comments about her appearance in February 2016. However, only the second allegation in the charge sheet—that is, the appellant no. 1 (Mahalakshmi) had thrown some of the informant/respondent no. 2 (Rekha Bhaskaran)'s personal belongings on the ground because they were not kept in the proper place—was found to be substantiated. Furthermore, Rekha Bhaskaran, the informant/respondent no. 2, was cursed profanely by appellant no. 1, Mahalakshmi.
- The charge sheet claims that appellants nos. 2, 3, and 4, Maharani T.S. Ranjanavadhan and Archana, respectively, were present at the Panchayat meeting that was called to settle the parties' differences.
- Appellant No. 1, Mahalakshmi, argues that the claims stated in the complaint are untrue and inaccurate. It is acknowledged, nevertheless, that she was residing and employed in Canada. Moreover, she traveled to India at some point in March 2016 to spend almost twenty days there for her friend's wedding in Mysore. Once more, she had been in India for approximately 12 days when her father, accused No. 2 Surendra Prasad, underwent surgery and spent two to three weeks in the hospital receiving critical care.
- It is also acknowledged that appellants nos. 2, 3, and 4, Maharani T.S., Ranjanavadhan, and Archana, respectively, were living apart. Actually, Maharani T.S., the second appellant, resides permanently in Secunderabad, Telangana. Following their marriage, Rekha Bhaskaran, the informant/respondent no. 2, and accused no. 1, Sarvan Kumar, were living in Bengaluru, Karnataka.
- In addition, a divorce decree dated November 17, 2022, has been issued, ending the marriage. Rekha Bhaskaran, the informant/respondent no. 2, has filed an appeal contesting the ruling.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- After reviewing the charge sheet, the court believe the claims made within are overly general and imprecise. If there is no substantial evidence of the person's involvement and interference in the complainant's marital life, one incident—unless it is particularly portentous—may not be enough to establish cruelty under section 498A of the IPC. We would accept the current appeal because the appellants were not living in the marital residence and appellant no. 1 was not even residing in India, and because there are no particulars that indicate cruelty.
- As a result, the court dismisses the criminal charges against the petitioners. We do, however, make clear that the trial court will have the option to use Section 319 of the Code and follow the law if any information is discovered during the recording of testimony.
- Further clarifying that the court have not commented or made any observations regarding the accusations made by Rekha Bhaskaran, the informant/respondent number two, and the charge sheet dated July 20, 2017, which is directed at accused numbers 1, 2, and 3, Sarvan Kumar, Surendra Prasad, and Malathi Prasad, respectively.
- The appeal is accepted and handled in the manner mentioned above.
- There won't be a cost hierarchy.
- Any pending applications will be handled accordingly.
CONCLUSION
- The trial court may proceed in accordance with Section 319 of the Code, the court explained, should any relevant evidence surface during the recording of evidence. This clause permits the addition of a defendant based on evidence during the trial who was not initially charged.
- The accusations against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Sarvan Kumar, Surendra Prasad, and Malathi Prasad) were left unaltered by the court's express refusal to comment or make any observations.
