Mahalakshmi vs The State Of Karnataka

NON-REPORTABLE 2023 INSC 1050 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 494/2023

MAHALAKSHMI & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Appellant no. 1 - Mahalakshmi is the sister of accused no. 1

- Sarvan Kumar, former husband of informant/respondent no. 2 –

Rekha Bhaskaran. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Maharani T.S. and

Ranjanavadhan, respectively, are cousins of accused no. 1 – Sarvan

Kumar. Appellant no. 4 – Archana is the wife of appellant no. 3 –

Ranjanavadhan.

Accused no. 1 – Sarvan Kumar and the informant/respondent no.

2 - Rekha Bhaskaran got married on 29.06.2015. Rekha Bhaskaran made

a written complaint, pursuant to which First Information Report1

No. 92 of 2016 dated 26.11.2016, was registered at Police Station –

Halasurgate Women, District – Bangalore City, Karnataka for the

offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

Signature Not Verified

After investigation, a charge sheet dated 20.07.2017 was Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2023.12.05

filed.

17:59:11 IST Reason:

1 For short “FIR” 2 For short “IPC” 2

Thereupon, the appellants, along with accused no. 1 – Sarvan

Kumar, his father, accused no. 2 – Surendra Prasad, and his mother,

accused no. 3 – Malathi were summoned to appear before the trial

court.

The appellants had filed a petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 19733 to quash the charge sheet

dated 20.07.2017. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned

judgment dated 21.03.2019.

It is an accepted position that appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi,

sister of accused no.1 - Sarvan Kumar, got married on 02.05.2013.

After marriage, she has been residing in Canada.

We have perused the complaint, as well as the charge sheet. In

the complaint, the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran had

alleged that in February 2016, appellant no.1 - Mahalakshmi

commented on her physical appearance and on 20.09.2016, Mahalakshmi

had thrown the personal belongings of Rekha Bhaskaran in the

dustbin. In the charge sheet, however, the only allegation that was

found to be substantiated was the second allegation, that is, the

appellant no. 1 - Mahalakshmi had thrown some of the personal

belongings of the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran on

the ground, as they were not kept at the proper place. Further,

appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi had cursed the informant/respondent

no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran in foul words.

Concerning appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Maharani T.S.,

Ranjanavadhan and Archana, respectively, the charge sheet alleges

3 For short “the Code” 3

that they were present in the Panchayat, which was called to

resolve the differences inter se the parties.

It is the contention of appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi that the

assertions made in the complaint are false and incorrect. However,

it is accepted that she was living and working in Canada. Further,

sometime in March 2016, she visited India to attend her friend’s

wedding in Mysore and stayed there for nearly twenty days. Again,

in September 2016, she had remained in India for almost 12 days

when her father, accused no.2 – Surendra Prasad, was operated and

hospitalized under critical care for two to three weeks.

About appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Maharani T.S.,

Ranjanavadhan and Archana, respectively, it is also an accepted

position that they were residing separately. In fact, appellant

no. 2 – Maharani T.S., is a permanent resident of Secunderabad,

Telangana. After marriage, accused no. 1 – Sarvan Kumar and the

informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran were residing at

Bengaluru, Karnataka.

We have been informed that a decree of divorce dated

17.11.2022 has been passed, dissolving the marriage. The

informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran, has filed an appeal

challenging the decree.

Having considered the charge sheet filed, we are of the view

that the assertions made therein are very vague and general. 4 One

4 See – Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599; K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452; Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741; and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667. 4

instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence

of interference and involvement in the marital life of the

complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as

having committed cruelty under section 498A of the IPC. Given that

the appellants were not residing at the marital home, and appellant

no.1 was not even living in India, the absence of specific details

that constitute cruelty, we would accept the present appeal.

Accordingly, we quash the criminal proceedings against the

appellants. However, we clarify that if any material comes on

record during the recording of evidence, it will be open to the

trial court to take recourse to Section 319 of the Code and proceed

following the law.

We also clarify having not made any comments or observations

on the allegations by the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha

Bhaskaran and the charge sheet dated 20.07.2017, against accused

nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely Sarvan Kumar, Surendra Prasad and Malathi

Prasad, respectively.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

There will be no order as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (S.V.N. BHATTI) NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 30, 2023.