- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1029 OF 2016 BETWEEN: S. JAGADISH S/O SOORYNARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT. NARAYANAPURA, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-574145. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. LAKSHMI KANTH, ADVOCATE; SRI JAVED S., AMICUS CURIAE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY, VIJAYAPURA POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.1626/2011 DATED 13.02.2015 AND CONFIRMED BY THE 5TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DEVANAHALLI IN CRL.A.NO.15001/2015 DATED 28.07.2016. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 CAV ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13.02.2015 in C.C.No. 1626/2011 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli and its confirmation judgment and order dated 28.07.2016 in Crl.A.No.15001/2015 on the file of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. The factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant - Smt. Prema married accused - S. Jagadish on 11.12.2009 and their marriage has been registered in the Sub- Registrar office at Chinthamani. It is stated that at the time of marriage, dowry was given in the form of cash, gold ornaments - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 and motor cycle etc. After the marriage, she started residing in her matrimonial home. It is further stated that, she stayed there for a period of nine months. It is also further stated that her husband was working as a computer teacher in a private school. 4. She further stated in her complaint that her husband is stated to have sold the motor cycle of which, they had given in the form of dowry and also sold gold ornaments of the complainant and he utilized the said amount for his own purpose. When it was questioned, he started assaulting her and used to quarrel with her even for trivial reasons. 5. In the year 2010, she went to her parent’s house for pre and post natal purpose. During her stay in the said house, the accused used to visit her house often and used to demand additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 26.05.2011 around 7.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of the complainant and picked up quarrel with her for not having paid the said amount and also threatened her that if she does not pay the said amount, he would marry another lady and he would not take her back to the matrimonial home. Hence, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent police on 02.06.2011. Based on the said complaint, the respondent police registered the FIR in Cr.No.92/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to P8. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the same. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 7. Heard Sri K.Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel and Sri. Javed S, learned Amicus-Curiae for the petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC has no substance and it is against the evidence on record. The allegations made in the complaint even though it is baseless and bald, the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction are arbitrary and unreasonable. 9. It is further submitted that, the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC has not been proved by the prosecution by leading any independent witnesses. Even assuming that the evidence of all the interested witnesses is true, even then, the ingredients of the provisions under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be proved. Hence, the conviction ought not to have been recorded on relying the evidence on record. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 the revision petition by setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short ‘HCGP’) justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he submitted that the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion that P.W.1 had been subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically at the instance of the accused. The evidence of the family members is relevant in a case of such nature, the Court cannot expect the independent witness to demonstrate the cruelty which takes place within four corners of the house. Of course, sometimes, panchayaths are convened and panchayathdars may be cited as witnesses. It cannot be a yardstick in all matrimonial issues. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are appropriate and proper and interference with the said findings may not be proper. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the documents available on record, it is appropriate to refer the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court for clarity on the issue relating to cruelty and harassment relating to Section 498-A of IPC. 12. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar1 para-14 reads as under: 14. “Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498- AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. “33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 13. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said issues, it is relevant to refer the case on hand. P.W.1 was the wife of the accused, she deposed in consonance with the facts of the complaint. In the cross examination, it is admitted that her parents had six - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 female children and they had an agricultural land for the purpose of their livelihood and she further admitted that she does not know as to how and where the accused had sold the gold ornaments. She further admitted that she was not aware as to whether the accused had sold the motor bike or not. However, she further admitted that, for the same bike, the accused had lodged a complaint against her brother about theft of the said bike. Though she made several allegations against the accused, the said allegations are routine quarrel that takes place in matrimonial houses. It is needless to say that every quarrel which takes place between the couple in the matrimonial house cannot be tagged in terms of cruelty and harassment. 14. When the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court that there was demand of dowry, in that context, she had been subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically, recording the conviction by considering such evidence, in my considered view cannot be proper and appropriate. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction need to be set aside. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16486 CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2016 15. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence, dated 13.02.2015 passed in C.C.No.1626/2011 by the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Devanahalli and judgment and order dated 28.07.2016 passed in Crl.A. No.15001/2015 by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/-