Dismissed

Smt L M Sarvamangala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021CRL.P/2764/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused to set aside orders rejecting her discharge application. The court held that the petition failed to establish that charges were not maintainable prima facie, thus denying admission.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitioner allowed liberty to raise contentions during trial.

Smt L M Sarvamangala Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2764 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Smt. L.M.Sarvamangala, Aged 60 years, No.118, F2, 2^nd Floor, Janhavi Clusters, 6^th Main, P & T Colony, Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru-560094.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri K.N.Nitish, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Karnataka By Sanjaynagar Police, Bengaluru By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

…Respondent (By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed by the learned VIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.7866/2015 dated 07.09.2019 at annexure-A and the order passed in Crl.RP.No.792/2019 dated 16.03.2021 passed by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH56) at Annexure-B.

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, through video conferencing, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner, who is facing trial in C.C.No.7866/2015 on the file of the VIII Addl. C.M.M.,

¶19

Bengaluru has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Heard the petitioner’s counsel at the time of admission. Government Pleader is present.

¶21

In relation to offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the 1^st respondent – police registered an FIR at the instance of one Smt. Harini. Thereafter charge sheet came to be filed. The petitioner made an application for discharging her and the same was rejected by the trial court. Therefore the petitioner approached the

¶22

¶23

Sessions Court by filing a revision petition and it was also dismissed. Therefore this petition is filed seeking to set aside the orders passed by Addl. C.M.M. and Sessions Court as per Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶25

that before the first informant, viz., Smt. Harini lodged the FIR with the police, the petitioner had lodged the FIR against Smt. Harini for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 354, 323, 341 and 504 IPC. With regard to that FIR also, charge sheet has been filed. Therefore it is his submission that the FIR lodged by Smt. Harini is false. The incident as reported by Smt. Harini does not disclose wrongfully confining her on 18.06.2014. Referring to the charge sheet filed pursuant to the FIR lodged by Smt. Harini, he argues that all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet belong to her family and no independent witness is cited. In the panchanama a different place

¶26

¶27

is shown as scene of crime. It is not the very same place which is shown in the FIR. Therefore in these circumstances, as the learned counsel argued, both the courts ought to have discharged the petition.

¶28

It is difficult to accept the argument of the petitioner’s counsel. Probably in respect of the same incident, two FIRs might have been registered, one at the instance of the petitioner and the other at the instance of Smt. Harini. The trial court has to find out who is the aggressor party. If it is a case and counter case, both the offences are to be tried in the same case. Anyway, it is for the trail court to take a decision. In so far as the witnesses in the charge sheet are concerned, if they are from the same family, while cross-examining the witnesses, the petitioner

¶29

can very well discredit them to point out that they are all interested and therefore their testimonies cannot be believed. These are all the aspects to be

¶30

¶31

considered by the trial court while appreciating the evidence. For discharging the accused, the petitioner has to make out a case that the charge sheet materials do not prima facie indicate any offence being committed. Since this endeavour is not made, I do not think that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be admitted. Therefore petition is dismissed. The petitioner has the liberty to take up all the contentions urged now during the trial.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Smt L M Sarvamangala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt L M Sarvamangala 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Srinivasa Vs Radha Ramakrishnan

M. Srinivasa Vs Mrs. Shobana G Subramaniam

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju Vs State by

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M Bhaskar @ Londe Bhaskar Vs the State by

Anand Arasu Gowda S Vs State of Karnataka