Partly allowed

Shivananda. H. S. v. Vidyashree H. E.

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021CRL.P/3997/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court declined to quash the order dismissing a discharge application and directed the criminal court to hear together the pending police case and the private complaint arising from the same incident.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the discharge application was quashed; the criminal court directed to hear the private complaint case together with the police case for joint trial.

Shivananda. H. S. Vs Vidyashree H. E. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3997 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHIVANANDA H.S., S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O HARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 122.

¶9

SHIVALINGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O HARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK - 573 122.

¶10

SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O HARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK - 573 122.

¶11

SMT. REKHA W/O HARISH K.M. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O KANCHUGARANAHALLI VILLAGE, SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,

¶12

¶13

CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶14

HARISH S/O MARULASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KANCHUGARANAHALLI VILLAGE, SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶15

SHARANKUMAR S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O HANDRALU VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 125.

¶16

PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O HANDRALU VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 125.

¶17

NILAMMA W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O HANDRALU VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 125.

¶18

SHANKARALINGAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O HANDRALU VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK,

¶19

¶20

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 125.

¶21

RENUKAMMA W/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O HANDRALU VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 125.

¶22

BASAMMA W/O GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O HANDRALU VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 125. ... PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.B.DESHPANDE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶24

AND

¶25

VIDYASHREE H.E. D/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O HANDRALU VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 125. ... RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHA T.T., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE IN C.C.NO.14/2016 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES.

¶28

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.11.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

¶32

question the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2016 and seek their discharge from the alleged offences in the pending proceedings before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere.

¶33

Heard Sri P.B.Umesh, learned counsel for Sri R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Virupaksha T.T., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶34

Briefs facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶35

The 1^st petitioner is the 1^st accused and husband of the complainant. Petitioners 2 and 11 are accused 2 to 11 in the aforesaid proceedings. The respondent/complainant registers a complaint on

¶36

¶37

10-11-2015 before the Javagal Police Station pursuant to which FIR is registered in Crime No.185 of 2015 against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504, 506, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. What led the complainant filing the said complaint is that when the complainant was waiting near Javagal Bus-Stand, the 1^st petitioner who was known to the complainant along with the 2^nd petitioner came to the bus stand and took the complainant to Yediyur in a vehicle forcibly and she was taken to a hall where accused Nos. 4 to 11 again forcibly confined her in a room, abused her in filthy language and later she was taken to a temple and forcibly her marriage was performed with the 1^st accused. Again the marriage was forcibly registered on 23-08-2013. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant was threatened with dire consequences. It was also her case that she was harassed and ill-treated by all the accused.

¶38

¶39

The jurisdictional police after investigation filed

¶40

charge sheet against the 1^st petitioner alone for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC and let off other accused holding that there was no allegation to put the other accused in trial. The said proceeding is pending adjudication before the competent criminal Court. These proceedings arose out of a complaint registered before the Police Station on 10-11-2015.

¶41

After registering the aforesaid complaint, the

¶42

complainant registers second complaint, this time, a private complaint on 8-12-2015 invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 341, 343, 346, 347, 363, 506, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On registration of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and pursuant to the charge sheet being filed, the petitioners are put on trial for offences

¶43

¶44

punishable under Section 354 and 356 of IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC in C.C.No.14 of 2016.

¶45

Pursuant to the charge sheet being filed, all the petitioners herein filed an application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge on the ground that the incident alleged does not attract the offence punishable under the aforesaid provisions and also contended that a similar complaint was filed before the Javagal Police Station in Crime No.185 of 2015 wherein only petitioner No.1 is held to be put on trial and the proceedings are dropped against all the other petitioners. The learned Judge hearing the discharge application by his order dated 15-02-2018 dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners have to come out clean in the trial and there was no case made out for discharging the petitioners for the offences alleged. It is this order that is called in question in the subject criminal petition.

¶46

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 356 read with Section 149 of the IPC as the earlier complaint is pending consideration in which the trial has commenced wherein the offence against the 1^st petitioner punishable under Section 498A is alleged. The learned counsel would vehemently submit that Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. would mandate that both the cases should be taken up together.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that there can be no offence under Section 498A of the Cr.P.C. as the complaint did not allege any harassment meted out against the 1^st petitioner. The case of the complainant is entirely different that she was abducted when she was 17 years and 6 months old

¶49

¶50

and had not disclosed the incident due to fear generated by the petitioners on the complainant.

¶51

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶52

The facts afore-narrated are as stated in the complaints lodged by the complainant. The first complaint that was lodged by the complainant before the jurisdictional Police was on 10-11-2015 for registering a case against the 1^st petitioner alone after conduct of investigation for offences punishable under Section 323 and 498A of IPC. A charge sheet was filed by the Police on 11-05-2016. The charge sheet was filed only against the 1^st petitioner/accused No.1/husband of the complainant and other family members were let off. During the pendency of investigation in Crime No.185 of 2015, which arose out of a police complaint being

¶53

¶54

lodged by the complainant, another complaint is registered by the complainant invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C alleging altogether different offences albeit arising out of the same incident. The offences alleged in the private complaint are that the complainant was abducted, forcibly got married to the 1^st accused at the time when she was 17 years and 6 months old.

¶55

The incident has happened on 14-08-2013 and the Police complaint is registered on 10-11-2015 and the private complaint is registered on 8-12-2015. Though there is a delay of close to two years and three months in registering the private complaint, the allegation is one of which would not stall the trial against the petitioners for the reason that the complainant at that point in time was 17 years and 6 months old. The learned Judge hearing discharge application clearly observes and considers the contentions of the petitioners that the school records

¶56

¶57

have been manipulated and holds that if the school records are manipulated it is a matter of trial to know the age of the complainant at the time when she was abducted and forcibly married.

¶58

Since both the complaints arose out of the very same incident albeit for different offences, in terms of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. it is necessary that both the cases – one arising out of police complaint and the other being private complaint be heard together. This is the purport of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

¶59

“210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence . (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subjectmatter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the

¶60

¶61

matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.

¶62

(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.

¶63

(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.”

¶64

Sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. mandates that

¶65

if a report is made by the investigating Police Officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken against the accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall enquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.

¶66

¶67

Therefore, while declining to interfere with the order impugned which dismisses the discharge application, I deem it appropriate to direct the criminal Court before whom the proceeding in Crime No.185 of 2015 is pending adjudication to take up C.C.No.14 of 2016 and hear them together.

¶68

With the aforesaid observations, the subject Criminal Petition stands disposed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

bkp CT:MJ

Shivananda. H. S. v. Vidyashree H. E.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivananda. H. S. v. Vidyashree H. E.

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

Mohammed Ilyas Ahmed Vs Deputy Commissioner

L Anand Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Smt Qurrath Ravoof Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Harish K L Vs the District Electoral Officer

Sri S v Ramesh Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri M Gopal Vs the Government of Karnataka