Dismissed

Sri John Peter v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021CRL.P/4396/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal petition seeking quashment of proceedings for dowry harassment and mental cruelty under Section 482 CrPC. The court dismissed the petition, holding it is not the stage to appreciate evidence or disbelieve prosecution, noting the existence of a trial and mutual counter-claims.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashment dismissed; liberty granted to apply for discharge if charges not framed.

Sri John Peter Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4396 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri John Peter S/o Antony Dass, Aged about 43 years, R/at No.58, 3^rd Cross, I.T.C. Colony, Cox Town, Jeevanahalli, Bengaluru-560005.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka By Women’s Police Station, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Smt. Nancy A., W/o John Peter, Aged about 35 years, R/at No.5/8, 1^st Floor, Biligiri Nilaya Building, 9^th Cross Adarsh Nagar, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru-560018. Also residing at No.26, Ochre Apartment Flat No.001, Ground Floor, M.S.O. Colony,

¶14

¶15

Jeevanahalli Main Road, Bengaluru-560033.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1; Smt. Beaula, Advocate for R2)

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CR.No.78/2020 registered by the 1^st respondent Women Police Station, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru as per Annexure-E and E1 on the Basis of complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 506, 354 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as per AnnexureE and etc.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is accused No.1 facing trial for

¶22

then offences punishable under sections 498A and 506 of IPC in C.C.9586/2021 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. This petition is for quashing the said proceedings.

¶23

I have heard Sri V.Vijayashekara Gowda,

¶24

learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court

¶25

¶26

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Beaula, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

Initially at the instance of the second

¶28

respondent, an FIR in Crime No. 78/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 506, 354 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his brother namely Rajkumar who is accused No.2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed only against the petitioner by dropping the offences under section 354 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶29

The facts disclose that the petitioner and the second respondent are spouses, it was second marriage for both of them. The allegations are that the petitioner and the second respondent purchased a house in Bengaluru in their joint name and thereafter

¶30

¶31

the petitioner compelled the second respondent to transfer the house to his name. He used to come home late during night hours and torture her physically, mentally and sexually. This resulted in second respondent approaching the police and then filing an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner also initiated proceeding for divorce against the second respondent alleging cruelty against him and in that proceeding the second respondent filed written statement setting up counter claim for divorce alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner.

¶32

Now the argument of the learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioner is that all the allegations made in the charge sheet are false. It was the second respondent who started torturing the petitioner, she went to the extent of kicking on his private part. He had to take treatment in the hospital and in that connection he

¶34

¶35

has produced many documents. The petitioner applied for divorce being unable to bear the cruelty of the second respondent and in that very proceeding the second respondent alleged cruelty against him and sought divorce by setting up counter claim. Charge sheet discloses that all the material witnesses are the close relatives of the second respondent. The evidence that the investigating officer has collected only discloses falsehood and in these circumstances if the petitioner is made to face trial it amounts to abuse of process of the court.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there are no grounds under section 482 Cr.P.C. She submitted that second respondent was harassed by the petitioner physically, mentally and sexually. The grounds that the petitioner has now taken cannot be considered for quashing the proceedings because there is a case for

¶37

¶38

trial. Government Pleader also submits that trial

¶39

needs to be held.

¶40

Having considered the points of arguments, it

¶41

has to be stated now that there are allegations and counter allegations by the petitioner and the second respondent. It is true that the petitioner has produced some medical documents, one of them discloses the treatment taken by the petitioner for an injury over his scrotum. But, it has to be stated that these documents cannot be considered in a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for disbelieving the case of the prosecution. If the documents are considered it amounts to appreciating the evidence which jurisdiction this court does not have. It is only after holding trial, the court below can come to a proper conclusion whether the allegations made against the petitioner are false or not. It may be a fact that in the charge sheet the names of the close relatives of the

¶42

¶43

second respondent are mentioned as witnesses. Merely for this reason, at this stage, it is not possible to state that these witnesses are interested. If the petitioner is able to discredit the testimonies of the witnesses in the cross-examination, the trial court may take a decision whether they are interested or not. Merely because the second respondent has made an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, it cannot be said that the second respondent is in the habit of taking criminal action against the petitioner one after the another. Therefore I do not find any good ground to interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. If the trial court has not yet framed the charges, the petitioner is given liberty to apply for his discharge.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

ckl

Sri John Peter v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri John Peter 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

Sri. K. Mahesh Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station

Sri S S Venkatesh Babu Vs Sri Sathyanarayana Gupta

M/S Oscar Equipments Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the State by

Shri Lakshmi Steel Suppliers Vs Samruddhi Realty Ltd.

M/S Concept Horizon Infra Pvt.Ltd Vs Aparna Nagesh Prakash