Partly allowed

Sri Channakeshava B N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2021CRL.P/782/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 IPC. Court held that while allegations existed against petitioners 1 and 2, no specific material against petitioners 3 and 4 warranted quashing of entire proceedings. Partially allowed prayer.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed against Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in C.C. No. 93/2014. Prayer for quashing against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 rejected.

Sri Channakeshava B N Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 782/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI CHANNAKESHAVA B. N. SON OF LATE B. C. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶8

SMT NAGAMMA W/O LATE B.C. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH PETITIONER NOS.1 & 2 ARE R/AT 92/1, 2^ND MAIN, WEDIA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶10

SMT POORNIMA W/O K. B. ARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.101/A, 4^TH CROSS, WEDIA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶11

SMT B. N. GAYATHRI W/O K. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.101/A 4^TH CROSS, WEDIA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

[BY SMT. RAJESWARI SHANKAR GOWDA PATIL, ADV.]

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYSORE – 570 023.

¶17

SMT K. R. SHASHIKALA W/O SHANTHANNA B N AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O NO.148, A AND B BLOCK NAVILU ROAD 7^TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE – 570 023.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

[BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P. NATARAJU., ADV FOR R2]

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER NOs.1 TO 4 IN C.C. NO. 93/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE BE QUASHED AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the petitioners’ Counsel and also learned

¶24

Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, praying this Court to quash the proceedings

¶26

¶27

initiated against Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.

¶28

No.93/2014 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶29

The factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint with the Respondent No.1 and based on the complaint, the Police have registered the complaint against the petitioners that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and also caused threat on the complainant.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there is no any allegation against Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and the allegations are made against the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are married sisters and only omnibus statement is made during the time of recording statement of

¶31

¶32

witnesses and the Investigating Officer failed to take note that there is no any material against Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 to invoke the provisions for the offences under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Complainant submits that only allegation against Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is that they also instigated other accused persons to subject them for harassment.

¶34

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the Police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet and CWs.8 to 11 are eye witnesses to the incident and there cannot be any quashing of proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶35

Having heard the petitioners’ Counsel and also Counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the FIR dated 13.11.2013, specific allegation against brother-inlaw and also mother-in-law and while lodging a

¶36

¶37

complaint, a request was made to take action against brother-in-law and also mother-in-law. On perusal of the statement of witnesses, except requesting to take steps against sister-in-laws, no other allegations are found. Hence, there is force in the contention of the petitioners’ Counsel that no case is made out against the petitioner Nos.3 and 4. When such being the case, when proceedings is continued against the petitioner Nos.3 and 4, it amounts to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. However, specific allegations are made against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Hence, I have not found any ground to quash the proceedings in its entirety. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed in part quashing the

¶40

proceedings against Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in C.C. No.93/2014 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil

¶41

¶42

Judge and JMFC, Mysuru. The prayer of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is hereby rejected.

¶43

Sd/- JUDGE

¶44

AN/-

Sri Channakeshava B N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Channakeshava B N 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.Murthy Vs State by Tarikere Town Police

Sri. Aramanamada Pratap Vs State of Karnataka

C Ramalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v.M.Srinivasagowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Premalatha Vs State by

Smt. B Gayathri Vs Sri Srinivas v