Partly allowed

Lakshman Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.P/3945/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court partly allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet under Section 354 IPC for lack of material to prove outraging modesty, while permitting trial to proceed on remaining Sections 323, 427, 504, and 506 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet for offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC quashed. Trial Court directed to proceed with trial on other offences.

Lakshman Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3945 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LAKSHMAN REDDY S/O. LATE RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, DIRECTOR,

¶8

M/S. SHOBA GLOBAL ENGINEERS HUB PVT. LTD.,

¶9

(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT).

¶10

SHARATH KUMAR S/O. LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M/S. SHOBA GLOBAL ENGINEERS HUB PVT. LTD.,

¶11

(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT).

¶12

SMT. SHOBHA W/O. LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DIRECTOR, M/S. SHOBA GLOBAL ENGINEERS HUB PVT. LTD.,

¶13

(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT).

¶14

RAVISURYA S/O. LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, DIRECTOR,

¶15

M/S. SHOBA GLOBAL ENGINEERS HUB PVT. LTD.,

¶16

(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT).

¶17

¶18

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.839-C., 17^TH MAIN ROAD, 22^ND CROSS, 3^RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶19

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MADHAV KASHYAP, ADV., FOR SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION, ANEKAL SUB-DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

SUREKHA R.V. D/O. NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, C/O. DURGA STEEL INDUSTRIES, NO.266/A, JIGANI LINK ROAD, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106, BENGALURU.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1 & SRI S.M. MANJUNATH AND SRI R. HEMANTHRAJ, ADVs., FOR R-2) * * *

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 1-9-2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AND REGISTERING CRIMINAL CASE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 ALLEGING COMMISSION OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354, 504, 427 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC IN C.C. NO.3622 OF 2020 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE PETITION.

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1. to 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the charge-sheet pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C at Anekal registered in Crime No.145 of 2020 of Suryanagar Police, Anekal Taluk, for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 504, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (for short, ‘IPC’).

¶30

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that, on 22-7-2020, Smt. Surekha, R.V., H.R. Manager of M/s. Durga Steel Industries filed a complaint alleging that on 21-7-2020, when herself and Chandan went to the

¶32

¶33

premise of M/s. Shoba Global Engineers Hub Private Limited, owned by the petitioners, demanding outstanding payment due to their Company, which was pending for long time, at that time, the petitioners have abused her and her colleague in filthy language, misbehaved with her and destroyed the cell phone in front of the Company. Hence, she prayed for taking action against the petitioners for outraging her modesty. After registration of the case, the Police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet, which is under challenge.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that on perusal of the complaint and the charge-sheet, absolutely, there is no material placed on record to frame the charges and to proceed with the trial and ingredients of Section 354 of the IPC would not attract. Previously, the complainant filed complaint to the Police on the same day which is registered as NCR No.392 of 2020 against the petitioners, but the Police have not taken any action. Subsequently, the Police registered

¶35

¶36

a case only to harass the petitioners. For recovery of amount, the complainant can approach the Court by taking legal action. From the complaint and further statement of the complainant, it is clear that there is no intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant. There is no recovery of the material in order to show that

¶37

the petitioners caused loss to the property of the complainant. Therefore, conducting trial is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed for quashing the charge-sheet.

¶38

Per contra , the learned High Court Government

¶39

Pleader has objected the petition and contended that, looking to the material on record, the offences punishable Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are made out and even otherwise for material damage, it attracts Section 427 of the IPC, but there is no ingredient to attract Section 354 of the IPC.

¶40

¶41

The learned counsel for respondent No.1complainant has contended that the material placed on record is sufficient to proceed with the petitioners for framing of charges and for trial. The Court cannot interfere with the investigation completed by the Police. Once the charge-sheet is filed, the Court cannot invoke the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. There is sufficient material placed on record to show that accused No.1 outraged the modesty of the complainant and damaged her mobile phone. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶42

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, the complainant in English language has clearly stated that when herself and her junior staff, Chandan, had gone to Shoba Global Engineers Private Limited to ask about the outstanding payment towards supply of steel, which is kept pending for long time, at that time, the petitioners have said that there is no arrears to be payable and no material is supplied by their

¶43

¶44

Company. During that time, there was scuffle and the petitioners tried to outraged the modesty of the complainant, abused them in filthy language and threaten them that if they come again, they will commit their murder. Even on perusal of the further statement made by the complainant, again she has reiterated the same that they insulted her for demanding outstanding payment of their Company, but no where she has stated that the petitioners have outraged her modesty to attract Section 354 of the IPC. The documents produced by the Investigating Officer do not attract Section 354 of the IPC. On perusal of the record, absolutely, there is no material placed on record that the petitioners with an intention, showed criminal force on her and outraged her modesty.

¶45

For ready reference, Section 354 of the IPC reads as under:

¶46

“S.354. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her

¶47

¶48

modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶49

Absolutely, there is no material placed on record to show the petitioners with intention used criminal force on them and outraged the modesty of the complainant. Of course, there is material placed on record to show that the petitioners abused in filthy language, pushed Chandan by holding his collar and they threaten to do away their life, if they come again, which attracts Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, but there is no provisions of law to attract Section 354 of the IPC. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant cannot be acceptable that the petitioners showed criminal force on the complainant to outrage her modesty. Therefore, I am of the view that there are material for framing of charge against the petitioners under Sections 323, 427, 504, and 506 of the IPC, but not under Section 354 of the IPC.

¶50

¶51

Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed . Charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is hereby quashed. Since there is sufficient material placed on record to frame charge for other offences, the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

kvk

Lakshman Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshman Reddy 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

Puneeth @ Benki Puni Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunath v Vs Smt. Shobha

Sahana @ Shahid Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Dakshayanamma H U Vs State of Karnataka

M Sreekanth Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B N S Reddy Vs State by