Criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayed to quash multiple FIRs arising from a domestic dispute where both parties alleged assault. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that cognizable offences were disclosed, thereby obligating the Investigating Officer to conduct a fair inquiry rather than quashing the proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.268/2021 C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2657/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4010/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.582/2020
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.268/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA J S/O K.JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS No.202, WARD No.7 BANANTHAMARAMMA EXT.KANAKAPURA TOWN, TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAMU.H.C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY KRUPA BWSSB WEST PART BRINDAVANA NAGAR, 1ST CROSS KANAKAPURA BANGALURU
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.P.P.HEGDE ADV., FOR SRI.HARSHITH.B. ADV.,FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN CR.NO.169/2019 OF WILSON GARDEN P.S., VIDE ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH A.C.M.M.,AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354B,506,341,509,34,504,120B,324,307 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2657/2020
BETWEEN:
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHIVARAMU.H.C.,ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.P.P.HEGDE ADV.,FOR SRI.HARSHITH.B.ADV.,FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR/COMPLAINT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED IN CR.NO.169/2019 OF WILSON GARDEN P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 120B,324,341,307,354B,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4010/2020
BETWEEN:
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
4
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
W/O H.B. SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY AGED 62 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT #288, SRI. MANJUNATHA SWAMY KRUPA BEHIND OLD GOWRI THEATRE RAMANAHALLI CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE ADV.,FOR SRI.HARSHITH.B.ADVOCATE)
5
AND:
(BY SMT.B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU ADV.,FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.168/2019 OF WILSON GARDEN P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 149,307,323,504,506 OF IPC BY ALLOWING ACCOMPANYING PETITION.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.582/2020
BETWEEN:
MUNIREDDY S S/O SRIRAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS PRACTICING ADVOCATE NAVAYUGA LAW ASSOCIATES 106/E, 16TH MAIN VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHIVARAMU.H.C.,ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH,HCGP FOR R1; SRI.P.P.HEGDE ADV.,FOR SRI.HARSHITH.B.ADV.,FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR/COMPLAINT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN CR.NO.169/2019 OF WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B, 324,341,307,354-B,504,506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ACMM AT BENGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitions in Crl.P.268/2021, Crl.P.No.2657/2020 and
Crl.P.No.582/2020 are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
accused No.1; accused Nos.3 and 4 and accused No.2
7
respectively praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.169/2019 registered by Wilson Garden police station for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 506, 341, 509, 504, 120B, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
8
petitioner in Crl.P.No.268/2020 and in the complaint, an allegation is made that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 15.06.2016 and thereafter, she gave birth to a child on 08.06.2017 and later, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. A petition was also filed in Crl.Misc.No.236/2019. Her husband also initiated the MC proceedings in M.C.No.2824/2019 and that on 05.12.2019, the case is pending before the Court. In the complaint also an allegation is made against the Advocates Shobha and Ravendra, who came along with her husband and in-laws at around 8.00 clock and insisted her to take back the jewels and give divorce to accused No.1 and the said incident took place in the month of April, 2019. That on 05.12.2019, when the case was posted for hearing, on that day, her husband and the Advocates Shobha, Ravendra and Munireddy by conspiring each other again insisted her to give divorce for which she did not agree. Hence, she was subjected to assault and so also her child was subjected to assault. The Advocates held her hand, assaulted and also abused her in a filthy language. As a result, her clothes was torn and she sustained the injuries to left hand fingers. When the same was
9
witnessed by her brother Manjunath Prasad and on being questioned her husband about the assault, her brother was also assaulted with a car key on his face. The Advocate Shobha also assaulted the son of the complainant by name Nihal, as a result, her child also sustained injuries. The Advocates also assaulted her brother with an intention to take away his life. Hence, she lodged the complaint on 09.12.2019.
10
language. He took treatment at NIMHANS Hospital and he has undergone suture and the Doctor also adviced him to take further treatment for a period of 2 days, for which, he intends to take treatment in other hospital. He had lodged the complaint on the same day at around 5.00 p.m. The police based on the complaint, registered the case in Crime No.169/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 506, 341, 509, 504, 120B, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
11
afterthought, after 4 days of the alleged incident, the case was registered against the brother of the complainant including the Advocates. There is no explanation for the delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint and in the absence of any documentary proof to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners herein, it is nothing but an abuse of process and if the proceedings is continued against the advocates and others, it amounts to an abuse of process, which leads to miscarriage of justice. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
12
13
and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also on perusal of the case and counter case and so also the complaints filed by the respective parties, both the complaints disclose the cognizable offence taken place on 05.12.2019. The respondents also relies upon the document of medical records i.e., discharge summary, wherein the brother of the complainant took treatment in the hospital. The petitioners’ counsel placed the document to show that the advocate also sustained bleeding injuries, that too, on his head. The photographs produced before the Court also disclose the injuries sustained by the advocates. When the case and counter cases are initiated and when both the cases are registered, no doubt, there is a delay in lodging the complaint by the wife on 9.12.2019 and the same has been substantiated by placing the discharge summary, which shows that the brother of the complainant took treatment in the hospital from 05.12.2019 to 07.12.2019 and the complaint was lodged on 09.12.2019.
14
the complaint, when the law is set in motion based on the complaint given by the respective parties, that too, when the complainant averments disclose the committing of cognizable offences in both the cases punishable under Section 307 of IPC and also that the respective parties have sustained the injuries. Under the circumstances, it is the investigation officer who has to probe the matter and the High Court should not venture to prevent the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation and the Court also should not venture to appreciate the evidence sitting as an Appellate Court. When the complaint discloses the prima facie offence has been taken place and that too, a cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer shall be allowed to probe and unearth the crime.
15
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing the FIR, cannot look into all these and also should not venture to interfere with the powers vested with the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer must be allowed to investigate the matter and file the final report before the Court as per the procedure established under Cr.P.C.
ORDER
The petitions are hereby rejected.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A., if any
does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
PYR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash FIRs registered for offences under IPC Sections 354B, 506, 341, 509, 504, 120B, 324, 307, 149, 323 read with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC.
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings where cognizable offences are disclosed in the complaint.
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint warrants quashing the filing of the case.
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA J
SHOBHA P
RAVINDRA M.V
STATE OF KARNATAKA
SMT.SWATHI S.S
SUNIL
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
