Bangalore District Court
Yashaswini K vs Tilak M on 27 January, 2025
KABC030236232024
Presented on : 03-05-2024
Registered on : 03-05-2024
Decided on : 27-01-2025
Duration : 0 years, 8 months, 24 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 27th Day of January, 2025
C.C. No.14259/2024
State by Yeshwanthpura Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Tilak. M. @ Tilak Bairava.M.
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Sri Manje Gowda,
2. Sri Manjegowda.J.
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Sri. Late Javere Gowda,
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
3. Smt. Pushpa Latha,
Aged about 48 years,
W/o Sri Manjegowda,J.
All are R/at No.20,
Soumya Nilaya, B Block, BEML 2nd Stage,
Srirampura, Mysuru. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Raghavendra H Edagi, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 18-05-2022 to
offence 25-06-2023
2. Name of Complainant Smt.Yashaswini.K.
3. Offences complained of Under Section 498(A),
504, 506, 323 read with
Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3,
4 of D.P. Act.
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused are acquitted
6. Date of order 27-01-2025
2
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Yeshwanthpura Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1
to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A),
504, 506, 323 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code
and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Prosecution Case: The marriage of CW1
namely Smt. Yashaswini.K. and the accused No.1 was
solemnized on 18-05-2022, at that time the accused
demanded and received 100 grams of gold ornaments
as dowry. After marriage, she was residing with
accused at No.27/20, Soumya Nilaya, B Block, BEML
2nd Stage, Sriramapura, Mysore, at that time accused
No.1 to 3 with common intention started ill-treating
CW1 and forcing her to fetch Rs.10 lakhs as
additional dowry. That being so, in June 2022, the
accused No.1 and CW1 were living on the 3rd floor of
Sri Ganganivas, House No.14, 15th Cross,
Muthyalanagar, Bangalore City, the accused was
harassing CW1 to bring dowry and put her to life
threat, if she gives complaint. The accused No.2 and
3, were frequently visiting accused’s house and
threatened CW1 that the accused No.1 would divorce
her, if she did not bring the dowry amount of Rs.10
lakhs, thereby the accused No.1 to 3 subjected CW1
with mental and physical cruelty.
3
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
3. First Information Report: On the basis of
first information given by informant cum CW1 namely
Smt. Yashaswini, CW12 Sri Nataraj.M.R., the ASI of
Yeshwanthpura Police Station registered Crime
No.208/2023 against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Section 354(A), 498(A),
504, 506, 323 R/W Sec.149 IPC and Sec.3, 4 of
D.P.Act, prepared FIR and sent the same to the Court
and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: After registration of case, CW13
namely Sri Mahesh Jamadar, PSI of Yeshwanthpura
Police Station drawn spot mahazar on 26-06-2023.
CW15 namely Sri Ajay Sarathy, PI of
Yeshwanthapura Police Station, continued the
investigation, recorded the requisite witnesses and
collected the documents and submitted the charge
sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under Section 506, 498(A), 504 and 323
read with sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of offences alleged against the accused
No.1 to 3.
6. The accused No.1 to 3 were enlarged on bail
by the order dated 11-11-2024
4
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused No.1 to 3.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused, charge for the offences
punishable U/Sec.498(A), 504, 506, 323 read with
Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act has been framed, read over
and explained to the accused in the language known
to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 15 witnesses and
examined one witness and exhibited 2 documents.
The learned Sr.APP prayed for issuance of witness
summons to other witnesses however his prayer was
rejected on the ground that the PW1 being material
witness did not supported the case and hence the
prosecution side was taken as closed on 25-01-2025
on account of settlement of matrimonial differences
amongst PW1 and the accused persons.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of
CrPC: There are no incriminating evidences against
the accused persons found from the evidence of
prosecution thereby the recording of statement of
accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
5
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
12. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 18-05-2022
accused married CW1 namely
Smt. Yashaswini, at that time,
the accused demanded and
received 100 grams of gold
ornaments from the parents of
CW1 as dowry thereby resulted
in commission of the offence
punishable under Sec.3 of D.P.
Act?
2. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that after marriage they
were residing at No.27/20,
Soumya Nilaya, B Block, BEML
II Stage, Sriramapura, Mysore,
at that time accused No.1 to 3
with common intention started
ill-treating CW1 and forcing her
to fetch Rs.10 lakhs as
6
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
additional dowry and also in
House No.14, 15th Cross,
Muthyalanagar, Bangalore City
the accused persons harassed
CW1 to fetch additional dowry
from her parents thereby
resulted in commission of an
offence punishable u/Sec.4 of
D.P. Act?
3. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt at above said place and
duration, accused No.1 to 3
with common intention picked
up quarrel with CW1 and
subjected her to both physically
and mentally cruelty thereby
resulted in commission of the
offence punishable under
Sec.498(A) R/W sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt at above said duration
and place the accused No.1 to 3
in furtherance of common
intention abused CW1 in
filthiest language knowingly
such abusive words will
7
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
provoke breach of peace
thereby resulted in commission
of an offence punishable u/Sec.
504 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt at above said duration
and places the accused No.1 to
3 in furtherance of common
intention beaten CW1 with
hand and caused simple hurt
thereby resulted in commission
of an offence punishable
u/Sec.323 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proved
beyond all reasonable doubt at
above said duration and places
the accused No.1 to 3 in
furtherance of common
intention threatened CW1 with
dire consequences thereby
resulted in commission of the
offences punishable u/Sec. 506
R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
7. What order?
8
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
13. The findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1-6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 6: These points are taken up
together for the purpose of common discussion in
order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the
same part of transaction. In support of prosecution
case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the
prosecution has examined two witnesses, which is as
follows:
i. CW1 by name Smt. Yashaswini.K. being
Informant examined as PW1 identified her signatures
on Ex.P1 (complaint) and Ex.P2(Spot Mahazar) as
Ex.P1(1) and 2(a). She further stated that when she
went to police station for settlement of minor
differences of opinion amongst her and accused No.1,
the police obtained her signatures on the said
documents and she pleaded ignorance about the
contents of Ex.P1 and 2. In this regard, the learned
Sr.APP cross examined this witness by treating her as
hostile witness but no favorable answer has been
elicited from her to support the prosecution case.
9
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
15. However it appears from the cross
examination of PW1 that
ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮದುವೆ ದಿ.18-05-
2022 ರಂದು ಮೈಸೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಜಿ ಎಲ್ ಎನ್ ಕನ್ವೆಂಶನ್
ಹಾಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. xxxxx
ಆರೋಪಿತರೊಂದಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಮೈಸೂರಿನ ಮನೆ
ಸಂ.27/20 ಸೌಮ್ಯ ನಿಲಯ ಬಿ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್ ಬಿಇಎಂಎಲ್
2ನೇ ಹಂತ, ಶ್ರೀರಾಮಪುರದ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದರು
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. xxxxx ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿತರ
ನಡುವೆ ಇದ್ದ ಭಿನ್ನಾಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳನ್ನು ಸರಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು
ಎಂ.ಸಿ.ನಂ.376/2025 ಅನ್ನು ಪರಸ್ಪರ ವಿಚ್ಫೇದನ
ಕೋರಿ ಕೌಟುಂಬಿಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಸದರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ 18
ಲಕ್ಷ ಶಾಶ್ವತ ಜೀವನಾಂಶವನ್ನು ನನಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದರಿಂದ ಈ ಕೇಸನ್ನು ನಾನು
ಹಿಂಪಡೆಯುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವ 18 ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನನಗೆ
ಡಿಡಿ ಮೂಲಕ ದಿ.24-01-2025 ರಂದು ಕೌಟುಂಬಿಕ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
Thus, the disputes between the accused No.1
and her in M.C.No. 376/2025 have been settled and
she received Rs.18 lakhs from accused No.1 as
permanent alimony.
16. This court places reliance in the case of
B.S. JOSHI AND ORS. V. State of haryana and anr in
the case of AIR 2003 SCW 1824, wherein it was held
that,
“in a case where matrimonial disputes
have been resolved between the parties then
10
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
in that case offence under Section 498A of
I.P.C. may be compounded between the
parties for according to them an
opportunity to settle in life afresh.
and in the case of Ranjana Banerjee v. Bijay
Bhushan Banerjee and Ors., 1996(2) East. Cri. C.
808 (Pat), wherein this lordship observed which runs
thus:
“It appears that good sense have been
prevailed amongst the spouses and when it
became impossible for them to lead
conjugal life any further and when the
matrimonial home has been broken for all
practical purposes, they have decided to
withdraw all allegations and counter
allegations against each other and get
themselves separated on divorce by mutual
consent. Although, Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code is not compoundable,
but in the nature and circumstances of the
case and the situation prevailing, accord is
hereby granted to compromise the dispute
between the parties and hence joint petition
filed in both the cases are hereby allowed.”
It further held that after examining the
nature of the case and the circumstances,
under which the offence has been
committed, it would be proper to compound
11
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
the offence and in my opinion, it would be
also meet the ends of justice.”
ADMITTEDLY, the disputes between the PW1
and accused No.1 have been resolved. The criminal
case under Section 498A of I.P.C. is the off-shoot of
the said matrimonial dispute. The parties have come
to their terms and in pursuance thereto the
CW1/PW1 does not intend to proceed with this case
and hence she has not supported the prosecution
case.
17. In the case of the KRISHNA vs STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in Laws(Kar) 2014 4 464,
wherein it was held that “it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to
an end”.
18. Under these circumstances and on account
of the preposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex and
Hon’ble High Court, even if other witnesses examined
by the prosecution, they did supported the
prosecution, would not helpful to the prosecution.
Under these circumstances, this court feels it is a
12
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
waste of precious time of the Court in examining
other witnesses. Moreover the evidence of other
witnesses is only formal in nature. Therefore, the
prayer of learned Sr.APP is rejected and prosecution
evidence is taken as closed and hence the ingridents
for offence under section 498A of IPC with other
offences under section 504, 506, 323 of IPC was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this
court answer the point No.1 to 6 in the Negative.
19. Point No. 7:- In view of the above findings
and reasons given on point No.1 to 6, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec.498(A), 504, 506, 323
read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
13
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be
in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in
my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this
the 27th day of January, 2025)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Yashaswini
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Material Objects marked on behalf of the
prosecution: NIL
14
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
15
KABC030236232024 CC No.14259/2024
27-1-25
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec.498(A), 504, 506, 323
read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be
in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B’luru City.
16