Allowed

Manjunath v. Vs Smt. Shobha

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2021CRL.P/721/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in a criminal case. The court held that the complaint appears to have been falsely initiated to harass the accused in support of a pending civil suit for partition and that the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in CC No.4151/2020 pending before the II ACJM, Bangalore Rural District, are quashed.

Manjunath v Vs Smt. Shobha — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.721 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MANJUNATH V. S/O. CHIKKA VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶9

GOWRAMMA S/O. MANJUNATH V., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶10

DARSHAN M., S/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶11

SHIVAIAH S/O. GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GADIPALYA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND

¶16

SMT. SHOBHA W/O. LATE V. RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.1093, 16^TH MAIN, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 050.

¶17

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP for R-2 SRI B.C. SRIRAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE for R-1)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.4151/2020 REGISTERED BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ACJM, BANGLAORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in CC No.4151/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323, 324 read with 34 of IPC in Crime No.47/2020.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 as also learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶26

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that a case came to be registered on the complaint of CW.1-Shobha filed before the Police on 21.02.2020 alleging that her husband Ravishankar died long back. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is said to be the younger brother of her husband, petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is said to be working in a Bank. When she went to the land on 28.12.2019 between 11.00 and 12.00 p.m., at that time, accused No.4 was found near the land and after enquiring about her presence in the land, he called accused Nos.1 to 3. They came in a motorcycle and directly dashed to her and felled her down. The accused took a stone and tried to throw it on her. She escaped and accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have assaulted her with hands and threatened her not to go to Police Station. She kept quiet at that time and later, she went to Victoria Hospital, after taking treatment, she went to the Police station and lodged a complaint on 21.02.2020. After the investigation, Police filed the charge sheet.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the charge sheet on the ground that there is inordinate delay of two months in lodging the complaint. There is no proper explanation. There is a civil dispute pending between the parties. The complainant through her children filed original suit in the year 2002 itself, which is pending. In order to overcome the civil suit, she has filed this criminal case. Absolutely there is no material to proceed with the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the wound certificate reveals that the injury is old injury and the wound certificate has been issued only on the request of the complainant with the RMO and even the Doctor has not intimated the same to the Police for registering a case. Only two eyewitnesses were shown in the charge sheet, which is cooked up eyewitnesses. There is no mentioning of the name of the eyewitnesses in the FIR. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. He also contended that there is no overt act attributed against accused Nos.1 to 4 except that

¶30

¶31

they were present on the spot. Therefore, prayed for quashing of the proceedings.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, de facto complainant, contended that accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted CW.1 by directly dashing against her the motorcycle and took up a stone to throw on her head. However, she escaped. Thereafter, they assaulted her with hands. Accused No.4 himself called accused Nos.1 to 3 to the spot and the incident took place. There are two eyewitnesses to the incident. The material on record corroborates with the wound certificate and the eyewitnesses’ statements. Therefore, there is a prima facie material to proceed with the matter, for framing of charges and to conduct the trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader supports the contentions of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and contended that the Police after registering the case seized the stone under the panchanama and there are two

¶34

¶35

eyewitnesses apart from the injured eyewitness. The delay was properly explained by her in the complaint itself. The facts and circumstances clearly show that these petitioners have assaulted her when she went near the land and the grounds urged by the petitioners are not sufficient to quash the proceedings.

¶36

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the complaint reveals that the incident took place on 28.12.2019 and the complainant went to the hospital by herself on 16.01.2020. Thereafter, she went to the Police Station on 21.02.2020. There is inordinate delay in not only lodging the complaint, but also for taking treatment. The averment shows that the petitioners said to have dashed the vehicle against her and after felling her down, they tried to throw a stone on her and later, assaulted her with hands. Therefore, if she has sustained any grievous injuries, she could have gone to the hospital immediately and could have lodged the complaint within the reasonable time.

¶37

Even then she has not approached the Police Station or took treatment within the reasonable time, but she went to the

¶38

¶39

hospital on 16.01.2020 after 19 days of the alleged incident. Even after treatment, she has not chosen to go the Police Station to file the complaint immediately after treatment but the complaint was lodged on 21.02.2020 almost more than 30 days.

¶40

Looking to the background of the criminal case, the complainant herself through her children filed a civil suit which is pending before the Court for partition. Such being the case, when she was residing at Bengaluru, the presence of the complainant at the spot is not explained by her, but she says she went to the land and accused No.4 was there on the spot, then these petitioners came and assaulted her. Looking to the averments, the offence cannot be said to be a serious one and the accused have intentionally assaulted her and caused injuries. The complaint does not reveal the name of the eyewitnesses said to be present at the land. It appears that the complainant in order to strengthen her case in the civil suit filed a complaint only to harass the petitioners. Looking to the entire case on record, there is substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶41

¶42

petitioners and it appears that in support of civil suit, this criminal complaint has been falsely initiated against the petitioners. Therefore, conducting trial is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶43

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC No.4151/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Manjunath v. Vs Smt. Shobha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath v. Vs Smt. Shobha

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. Sagar Vs State of Karnataka

Veerabhadraiah Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr M K Pushpitha Vs State of Karnataka

Puneeth @ Benki Puni Vs State of Karnataka

Sahana @ Shahid Vs the State of Karnataka

Punith Vs State of Karnataka