Pranav B Prem

In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court declined to quash proceedings against a husband and his parents, charged under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 304B (dowry death) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the death of the complainant's daughter, barely a year after her marriage, warranted a full trial despite the presence of a death note blaming no one.

Key Observations

The court stated: “It is rather unfortunate that the age-old menace of dowry death still exists in our society today. Though progression has happened on every front, the cases of this kind which project the menace of dowry death is regressive.” The case stems from the death of a young woman, Roja, who was married to Vikas C.V., the first petitioner, on October 24, 2019. The complainant, her father, alleged that she was harassed for dowry, leading to her suicide on October 24, 2020. The death occurred under circumstances described as "mysterious," and the complainant accused the husband and his family of abetting her death.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the deceased had left a death note, which explicitly stated that no one was responsible for her death. They argued that this absolved them of criminal liability. Further, they claimed they were financially well off, negating any need for dowry. On these grounds, they sought quashing of the case.

Court’s Findings

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2015), which held that a suicide note stating "no one is responsible" does not automatically exonerate the accused in dowry death cases. The bench emphasized: “The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the death note blames none and the law cannot blame them, is noted only to be rejected, as it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial.” The court further highlighted that the allegation of dowry harassment was a factual matter requiring evidence and could not be dismissed summarily. Noting that the relationship between the accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant, after marriage, lasted only for one year. The court said, “Therefore, the death happens barely after a year of marriage. The emphasis that is laid by the counsel learned for the petitioners is, that they are themselves well off and there was no necessity to demand dowry. This is a pure question of fact, which undoubtedly requires evidence.”

Role of Evidence

The court reiterated that in cases under Section 304B IPC, the circumstances leading to the death must be examined during the trial, including whether the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. It emphasized that: “The death happens barely after a year of marriage. This is a pure question of fact, which undoubtedly requires evidence.” The court also noted the importance of testing the validity and circumstances surrounding the death note.

Verdict

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition, holding that: “Merely based upon the death note of the victim, which at all times would require evidence of circumstances in which the suicide happens or the death note is scribed, quashment of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not a course available to this Court. Therefore, I decline to interfere to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioners.”

Cause Title: Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2730 OF 2024

Date: January-22-2025

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

[Read/Download order]