Dismissed

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2021CRL.P/100860/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.624/2017 arising from domestic violence, assault, and property eviction allegations against petitioners who were accused and had obtained a temporary injunction in a related civil suit. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the charge sheet was not wholly groundless and it was not a fit case for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.624/2017 is dismissed.

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶6

CRL.P.NO.100860 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT.CHINNAVVA W/O BASAPPA KAPPALGUDDI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.899, KUVEMPU NAGAR, DIST:BELAGAVI-590001.

¶9

SHRI.NILAKANTH S/O BASAPPA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.899, KUVEMPU NAGAR, DIST:BELAGAVI-590001.

¶10

SMT. JEEVAN W/O PANCHAKSHARI GODI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.160, KALYAN NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, DHARWAD-580007.

¶11

SMT. JYOTI W/O DEEPAK AMBALI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KALLOLLI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI,

¶12

-2-

¶13

SHRI.PANCHAKSHARI S/O CHANNAPPA GODI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: PLOT NO.160, KALYAN NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, DHARWAD.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY A. P. M. C., POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SWETHA W/O. MANJUNATH KAPPALGUDDI, R/O. PLOT NO. 899, KUVEMPU NAGAR, BELAGAVI, C/O. HOUSE NO. 2120/M MARADI GALLI, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADV., FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.624/2017 WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 324, 354, 448, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE IV JMFC, BELAGAVI IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶21

-3-

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶25

the prayer is for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C.No.624/2017 on the file of the learned IV-JMFC, Belagavi for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶26

The present petitioners are accused No.1 to 5 in C.C.No.624/2017 on the file of the learned IV-JMFC, Belagavi. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. The allegation is that respondent No.2 was married to one Manjunath Basappa Kappalaguddi on 29.01.2012, who is the son of petitioner No.1 herein and brother of petitioners 2 to 4. Petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.3. It is alleged that the husband of respondent No.2 died on 15.04.2016 and thereafter all the petitioners started harassing and ill-treating her and they

¶27

-4-

¶28

were putting pressure on her to sign on a bond paper. Respondent No.2 reported the ill-treatment from the petitioners to her father. Thereafter, she started residing with her father in Bailhongal. In April-2016, Ghataprabha police had called her father and thereafter he had appeared before them and stated the true facts to the police. Respondent No.2 filed a civil suit and obtained an order of temporary injunction from the Court in Belagavi restraining the petitioners from dealing with the family properties. Thereafter, during January-2017, the petitioners had forcibly evicted the tenant of the husband of respondent No.2 who was paying Rs.22,000/- per month from the house owned by her husband.

¶29

The further allegation is that on 06.02.2017 at about 8.30 a.m., on receiving information from her uncle she had gone to the house of her husband in Kuvempu Nagar at about 10.15 a.m., and at that time, accused persons had assaulted respondent No.2, her father and brothers with deadly weapons and they had thrown chilly

¶30

-5-

¶31

powder on them and respondent No.2 had to take treatment in Civil Hospital, Belagavi. Based on the said complaint, police registered a case in crime No.25/2017 in A.P.M.C., Police Station, Belagavi and on conclusion of investigation, they have filed charge sheet in C.C.No.624/2017 before the learned IV-JMFC, Belagavi for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶32

It is urged in the petition on behalf of petitioners that there is a civil litigation in O.S.No.214/2016 before the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi and therefore, the allegations in the complaint are false and baseless. It is urged that respondent No.2 is not at all living with the petitioners. It is also urged that it is settled principle of law that when there is a prohibitory order of injunction against the complainant not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the property, the question of registration or initiating criminal proceedings would not arise.

¶33

-6-

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the complaint and the charge sheet make out primafacie case against the petitioners for commission of offences mentioned in the charge sheet and therefore, there is no good ground to quash the charge sheet or further proceedings initiated based on the charge sheet. He therefore, prays that the petition should be dismissed.

¶35

I have given my anxious consideration to the entire case and perused the records.

¶36

A perusal of the charge sheet papers clearly show that C.W.4 to C.W.7 are eyewitnesses and C.W.1 herself is the injured witness. The wound certificate pertaining to her is also said to be a part of the charge sheet papers. Taking into consideration the materials available in the charge sheet papers and also specific allegations made in the complaint, it cannot be said that the charge sheet filed is wholly groundless. Under such circumstances, keeping in mind the law laid down at para 121 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶37

-7-

¶38

Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others reported in 2021 1 SCC 1, this is not a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

yan

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vinitha @ Vinisa W/O Santosh Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman Mannikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamant S/O Bharamappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajendra Bandaji Patil Vs Hanuman Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd.

Rajendra Bandaji Patil Vs the Chikodi Mahila Co-Op Credcit Society Ltd.