Dismissed

Smt Leelavathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2021CRL.P/3391/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The Court held that since the petitioner could challenge the impugned discharge order via a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., a Section 482 petition was not sustainable as an alternative remedy existed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as it was not sustainable; liberty was reserved to seek appropriate remedy.

Smt Leelavathi Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.3391/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3391/2017 `

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SMT.LEELAVATHI W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.11/B, LEELANILAYA 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, KRISHNANAGAR J.P.NAGARA 8^TH PHASE BENGALURU – 560 078 …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SOMASHEKHARA HARVI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

SMT.V.MANASA W/O SUNILKUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.11/B, LEELANILAYA 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, KRISHNANAGAR J.P.NAGARA 8^TH PHASE BENGALURU – 560 078 PRESENT ADDRESS: NO.112, UDAYAGIRI BANK COLONY OPP.GANAPATHI TEMPLE MYSORE – 570 019 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI N.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

Crl.P.No.3391/2017

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.270/2013 OF RESPONDENT SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.10819/2013.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard.

¶20

Petitioner was accused No.2 in Crime No.270/2013 of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru. The said case was registered against the petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘the DP Act’ for short) on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2.

¶21

For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks in the First Information Report. Accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2/the petitioner. Accused No.3 is the married

¶22

Crl.P.No.3391/2017

¶23

¶24

sister of accused No.1. Accused No.4 is husband of accused No.3.

¶25

The marriage of complainant/respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was solemnized on 05.02.2010. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused subjected respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their demand for dowry. Respondent No.1 police after investigation filed charge sheet only against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and 3 & 4 of the DP Act.

¶26

As admitted in paragraph No.12 of the petition itself, the petitioner/accused No.2 filed Crl.P.No.5817/2016 seeking quashing of the proceedings against her. However, this Court rejected the said petition reserving liberty to her to file an application before the trial Court seeking discharge. Thereafter, she filed application before the trial Court seeking her discharge. The trial Court on hearing both parties, by order dated 12.01.2017 rejected the said application.

¶27

Crl.P.No.3391/2017

¶28

¶29

Again accused No.2 has filed the above petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.270/2013. Therefore this petition on the face of it is not maintainable. At the most, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the order rejecting her application for discharge.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order rejecting the application for discharge is interlocutory order, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and the revision petition does not lie.

¶31

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh¹ has held that the order rejecting the application for discharge is not interlocutory, but intermediary order. Therefore the bar under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. for filing revision is not applicable and the revision petition can be maintained. Under the circumstances the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. bypassing the remedy of revision under Section 397 of

1 AIR 2021 SC 2351

Crl.P.No.3391/2017

Cr.P.C. is not sustainable. Therefore the petition is

¶36

dismissed.

¶37

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek

¶38

appropriate remedy.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

KSR

Smt Leelavathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Leelavathi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Asha P Shetty Vs Smt K Rupa

Smt Asha P Shetty Vs Smt K Rupa

Abdul Azeez Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Izaz @ Izza Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Balaraju H R Vs Station House Officer

Sri Gangadharaiah Vs Sri Sreenivasamurthy