Dismissed

Mathiyalagan v. State

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021CRL.P/2665/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for offences under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC, the High Court rejected the plea. The court noted the petitioner's absence and lack of diligence in curing defects despite prior notices, finding prima facie evidence of domestic harassment justified the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.54947/2017 is hereby rejected.

Mathiyalagan Vs State — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2665/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MATHIYALAGAN S/O LATE GOPAL T., AGED 38 YEARS, 5^TH CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, AKSHAY NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SIVAMANITHAN S., ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S., REP BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶13

ANJLIN GRACE SINGH W/O MATHIYALAGAN GOPAL, D/O SUNDAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NO.301, NEAR OM SHAKTI HERITAGE LANE IBLUR JUNCTION SARJAPUR SIGNAL BENGLAURU CITY-560 102. KARNATAKA.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K., HCGP ROR R1)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.54947/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X-ACMM MAYO HALL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.506 AND 498-A OF IPC, 1860. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

None appears for the petitioner either through video conference or present before the Court physically.

¶20

But, in this matter, the counsel for the petitioner who is on record is required to remove office objections which have been raised even for second time. But, neither the counsel for the petitioner who is on record nor the petitioner being arraigned as accused are diligent or vigilant to cure the defects under the curial law to proceed further in this matter.

¶21

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State is present before the Court physically and submits that the case in C.C.No.54947/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 498A of IPC, 1860 is pending before the Court of X-Additional Chief

¶22

¶23

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. The complaint is filed by Smt. Anjlin Grace Singh against her husband Sri. Mathiyalagan S/o late Gopal T., and whereby her husband had given physical as well as mental harassment to her and she has approached Ramamurthy Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, to register the crime against the accused persons. Accordingly, the case in Crime No.548/2016 has been registered by the police having jurisdiction by recording FIR dated 30.08.2016 for the offenses punishable under Sections 506 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶24

Keeping in view the offences alleged against the accused, prima facie materials reveals that the complainant who is the gravamen of the incident narrated in detail in her complaint and based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion and more over, the accused had given physical and mental harassment and so also extending life threat to her.

¶25

¶26

But, subsequent to registration of crime, the

¶27

Investigation Officer has taken up the case for investigation and investigation has been done in detail by following mandatory provision of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., by recording the statement of witnesses and so also securing the material documents in order to file the charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigation Officer has laid the charge sheet.

¶28

But, the complainant who is the gravamen of the incident has narrated in her complaint that she got pregnant in the month of February, 2015 and that her husband who is the petitioner before this Court has moved out to China in the month of April, 2015 leaving the complainant and made her to suffer with child in her womb. These are the allegations made in her complaint in detail.

¶29

Having gone through the allegation made against the petitioner who is arraigned as accused that he being

¶30

¶31

a womanizer and also involved in sex offender case in

¶32

USA and he was in incarceration for a period of 13 years, these are the allegations made in her complaint and whereby, based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion. Therefore, it is said that the accused does not deserve for seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against him and also pending against him before the Court having jurisdiction in C.C. No.54947/2017.

¶33

Therefore, it is said that the accused who is

¶34

the petitioner before this Court does not deserve for seeking any remedies under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the case in C.C.No.54947/2017 arising out of Crime No.548/2016 which is pending before the Court having jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition filed by the petitioner/accused under

¶38

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is herby rejected.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PB/RJ

Mathiyalagan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathiyalagan v. State

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

Zameer Vs State by Range Forest Officer

Smt. Jayanthi Vs State by Kumsi P. S.

Smt Pooja Kapoor Sidhu Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammad Haris @ Mohammad Arif Vs State

Sri. B. a. Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shamsunder K S Vs State of Karnataka