Petitioner challenged the lower court's dismissal of his case for false allegations filed by his ex-wife, arguing improper cognizance was taken. The High Court rejected the petition as a frivolous filing following a divorce decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1104 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Sri. Ajith Nayak, House No.2B, Ground Floor, Gullappa Reddy Building, Near Ramaiah Garden, SOS Post, Bangalore – 560 076.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri A.S.Gupta, Advocate) AND:
Smt. Shreelatha Nayak, No.85, 1st Floor, Prathima, 8th Main, Sector 1, Nobo Nagar, SOS Post, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076.
…RESPONDENT
2
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to a) examine the legality, the property and correctness of the proceedings of the lower court taking cognizance under Section 500 of IPC only by order dated 15.5.2014 by V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore of dismissal order dated 5.10.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) in Crl.R.P.No.5/2015 and etc;
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
petition against his wife and he has been granted a decree of divorce. However, in the statement of objections to the petition, the respondent – wife is said to have made an allegation that the petitioner was frequently found with his sister-in-law in a locked bedroom and her queries as to what
was happening, was met with a vague answer that he was teaching yoga to his sister-in-law. This according to the respondent, was not readily acceptable and it was her strong
3
suspicion that they were having an illicit relationship. It was the plea taken by her, which has been established before the Family Court that it was an incorrect statement which was not proved. Therefore, the petitioner has now taken the initiative of filing a criminal case against the respondent for filing a false document before the court and has alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 499, 500 501, 503, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The court below has taken cognizance only of an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and has not taken cognizance under other provisions of law. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court.
This is apparently a frivolous petition filed notwithstanding that there is a decree of divorce. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings for false allegations by the husband against wife is maintainable after a divorce decree.
Whether the petition is frivolous given the existence of a prior decree and the unproved nature of the allegations involved.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajith Nayak
Shreelatha Nayak
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
