Disposed

Prof Veena Karanth v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2020CRL.P/5231/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a petition for quashing criminal proceedings. The High Court directed the police to investigate two related complaints together instead of separately and restricted police visits to the petitioners' residence or station, disapproving hospital visits.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to investigate Crime Nos. 66 and 67/2020 together; police directed not to visit Manipal hospital for investigation.

Prof Veena Karanth Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5231 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Prof. Veena Karanth, Aged 53 years, W/o Kota Lakshminarayana Karanth.

¶8

Tulasi Karanth, Aged 35 yaers, D/o Veena Karanth,

¶9

Both are R/at Flat No.308, Malavika Residency, Lakshmindra Nagar, Manipal – 576104, Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk and District. ... Petitioners

¶10

(By Sri. Sudesh Kumar Acharya, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

State of Karnataka By Manipal Police Station, Manipal – 576104 Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶13

Beauty Barman Aged 43 years, W/o Binod Kumar Mandal,

¶14

Crl.P.No.5231/2020

¶15

¶16

R/at Flat No.306, Malavika Residency, Lakshmindra Nagar, Manipal – 576104, Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk and District. ... Respondents

¶17

(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R.1)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C paying to quashing the entire process and all proceedings in Cr.No.67/2020 on the file of the Manipal Police Station (Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Udupi) with regard to alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and etc.

¶20

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Sri Sudesh Kumar Acharya U, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to comply with office objections. But however, requests this Court to take up the matter due to urgency. Acceding to his request, pending such compliances the matter is

¶23

taken up.

¶24

Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1. Since the petition is being disposed of at the stage of Admission, I am of the

¶25

Crl.P.No.5231/2020

¶26

¶27

opinion that there is no requirement of service of notice to respondent No.2, since no orders are passed against respondent No.2.

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 67/2020 registered by the Manipal Polcie Station pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Udupi punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 506 R/w 34 of IPC.

¶29

The petitioners and respondent No.2-complainant are stated to be neighbours inasmuch as the petitioners are residing in Flat No.307 and 308 where as respondent No.2 is residing in Flat No.306.

¶30

The petitioners on 21.02.2020 at 19.00 hours filed a complaint alleging that respondent No.2 and her husband have unauthorizedly removed the chappal stand placed out side of their flat. On enquiry,

¶31

Crl.P.No.5231/2020

¶32

¶33

respondent No.2 and her husband had assaulted petitioner No.2 and her husband. The said complaint has been registered as Crime No.66/2020 by the Manipal Police Station, Udupi Sub Division.

¶34

Respondent No.2 as on 21.02.2020 at 21.29 hours filed a complaint which has registered as 67/2020 by the very same Manipal Police Station, Udupi Sub Division. Wherein respondent No.2 has alleged that on 21.02.2020 when respondent NO.2 complained about placing of the chappal stand by the petitioners and the husband of respondent No.2 shifted the chappal stand there was an altercation between the petitioners, respondent No.2 and her husband. It is in this regard, the aforesaid complaint which is the subject matter of the present petition has been filed.

¶35

Sri Sudesh Kumar Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second complaint in Crime No.67/2020 is a counter blast to the

¶36

Crl.P.No.5231/2020

¶37

¶38

earlier complaint filed in Crime No.66/2020 by the petitioners. On this basis, he submits that when the complaint of the petitioners is under investigation, there is no requirement for separate complaint to be filed by respondent No.2 and or a separate investigation in relation thereto.

¶39

Having considered the allegations made in the complaint filed by the petitioners as also the allegation made in the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the admitted facts are that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are neighbours and on 21.02.2020 there was a altercation between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and her husband on account of dispute as regards the placing of chappal stand and or location of chappal stand of the petitioners. The petitioners have also filed a complaint and have set criminal law in motion as against respondent No.2 and her husband. Though the complaint of respondent No.2 is subsequent by

¶40

Crl.P.No.5231/2020

¶41

¶42

3 hours to that filed by petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that both the complaints arising out of same incident would have to be investigated by the jurisdictional police who have registered both the complaints namely Manipal Police Staiton. In view of the same, Manipal Police Station Udupi Sub division is directed to investigate the Crime Nos.66 and 67 of 2020 together.

¶43

Sri Sudesh Kumar Acharya submits that petitioners are both doctors working in Manipal hospital, the jurisdictional police have sought to visit the hospital to conduct so called investigation. He submits that the hospital not being the place of occurrence of the alleged offence and not being relatable to the offence in any manner there would no requirement for jurisdictional police to visit the hospital where the petitioners are working. The said submission merit consideration. The Jurisdictional police is directed not to visit the Manipal hospital where the

¶44

Crl.P.No.5231/2020

¶45

¶46

petitioners are working and if petitioners are required to be interrogated or questioned, the same can be done at the residence of the petitioners and or at the police Station.

¶47

The petition is disposed of in view of the

¶48

above.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

nms

Prof Veena Karanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof Veena Karanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Abhishek Karanth

Mr. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Abhishek Karanth

Mr. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Abhishek Karanth

H.P. Manjunath Vs Smt. H.R. Sabitha

T S Suresh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniraju Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka