Dismissed

Sri Koradhanyamath K N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021CRL.P/822/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR against two accused parents. Relying on the Supreme Court in Dineshbhai Patel, the court held that the allegations required police investigation before drawing conclusions, so the petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition to quash the FIR against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed to allow police investigation.

Sri Koradhanyamath K N Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.822 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI KORADHANYAMATH K.N. S/O. LATE SRI NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 1^ST CROSS, RAJ-RAJESHWARI NAGAR, SIDDHA NIKETAN, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI – 581 115.

¶8

SMT. SHAMBHAVI W/O. SRI KORADHANYAMATH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 1^ST CROSS, RAJ-RAJESHWARI NAGAR, SIDDHA NIKETAN, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI – 581 115.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI HIREMATH MALLAYYA VEERAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SUB INSPECTOR, JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BASAVANAGUDI WEST ZONE, BENGALURU CITY – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶13

¶14

DEEPALI B. SANDIMANI W/O. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF #28, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, G.D. PARK EXTENSION, VAYALIKAWAL, BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP for R.1; SRI R. HEMANTHRAJ, ADVOCATE for R.2.)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME No.150/2019 DATED 19.11.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NOs.2 AND 3).

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.08.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT , THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2

¶21

and 3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the FIR in Crime No.150/2019 registered by Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short ‘IPC’).

¶22

¶23

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 19.11.2019 before the Basavanagudi Women Police against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the above said offences alleging that she got married to accused No.1 who being the son of accused Nos.2 and 3 on 12.12.2008 at Davanagere. On 05.05.2019, the complainant’s sister was traveling in the train where accused No.1 was also traveling in the same train to Ranebennur. While traveling, accused No.1 expressed his desire of having sexual affair with her as the complainant had developed intimacy with the complainant’s brother-inlaw. It is further alleged that on 04.05.2019, there was a dispute between accused No.1 and the complainant and accused No.1 is said to have abused her in a filthy language stating that she is having affair with her brother-

¶25

¶26

in-law i.e., her sister’s husband. He used to torture the complainant by beating with belt, shoe and burning with match sticks. Accused No.1 was suspecting her that their son is not born to them and was pressurizing her to go for DNA test. When the complainant refused for the same, accused No.1 used to hit her badly with belt. Accused No.1 was regularly checking the phone calls, messages and harass her physically and mentally. Even though her parents gave much cash and gold ornaments during the time of marriage but accused No.1 always used to assault her. Even on 4.5.2019 at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., accused No.1 assaulted her near the Srikanteshwara Temple with his slippers and somehow she reached the house. Again after coming home, he locked her and hit her with belt, burnt her hands and threatened to kill her and also made her to write a confession letter by holding the knife at her neck stating that she had an affair with her brother-in-law. Due to his fear she wrote the confession letter as he dictated. He also made her to write a suicide note stating that no one is responsible for her death and got signed on

¶27

¶28

both the letters. Even though her parents wanted to take her to their house, but she did not go as she worried about her son. The next day her in-laws took her to Ranebennur and tortured her physically and mentally by beating her using abusive language. They took away her phone and not allowed her to make phone calls to her parents, brothers and sisters. Thereafter, they gave back her phone and made her to speak on their instructions over phone with her family members. After coming back to Bengaluru, the harassment and torture by accused No.1 was increased. He used abusive language about her character in front of her son and beat her. She further alleged that as she could not tolerate the harassment, on 14.08.2019, she along with her son left her husband’s house and started living in her brother’s house. On 29.08.2019, accused No.1 called her and threatened her. Hence, she filed a complaint to the Channamankere Acchukattu Police Station and they referred the complaint to Basavanagudi Women’s Police Station. On 30.08.2019, she gave a complaint to Basavanagudi Women’s Police Station. But

¶29

¶30

the Police refused to register a case and warned accused No.1 and also took undertaking from him stating that he would not harm the complainant, her son and family members. In spite of warning, again he started assaulting her in the month of October and November 2019 and threatened her to settle the dispute through one Omkar Swamiji, Davanagere and one Hiremath and other elders of the village in respect of giving custody of his son to him and warned her not to claim anything or else they would defame her by making allegations of relationship with her brother-in-law. Therefore, she prayed for taking action against accused No.1. After registering the case, the petitioners are said to have obtained bail and now they have appeared before this Court for quashing the proceedings as abuse of process of law.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that on perusal of the entire allegation in the complaint reveals only against accused No.1 and there is no allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3. They have not

¶32

¶33

at all committed any offence. Their names have been added in the complaint only for harassing the complainant. Absolutely there is no overt act attributed against them. Allowing the Police to conduct the investigation is abuse of process of law. It is the duty of the parents to advice about the pros and cons which is not reasonable to say that they have committed offence. Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR.

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 seriously objected the petition and contended that absolutely there is no ground made out in the petition for quashing the FIR. The facts that they have stated cannot be considered. The allegation made in the complaint is not only against accused No.1 but also against these petitioners who forcibly took the complaint to their house. They detained her, abused her in filthy language and they also snatched her phone and not allowed the complainant to speak with her parents and family members. Thereafter, they gave back her phone and made her to

¶35

¶36

speak on their instructions with her family members. There is material to investigate the matter against the petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶37

Learned High Court Government Pleader also objected the petition.

¶38

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the complaint reveals that the allegation made against accused No.1 stating that he always used to suspect the fidelity of the complainant with her brother-in-law who is said to be an Advocate. Accused No.1 asked the complainant’s sister for sexual favour saying that the complainant had developed intimacy with her brother-in-law. But she has not informed the same to the complainant in order to keep the good relationship and married life of the complainant (sister). But in spite of the same, accused No.1 started harassing the complainant mentally and physically, assaulting her with belt, slippers etc. But the averments made in the complaint is that subsequent to filing of the complaint, the Police have

¶39

¶40

refused to register the case in previous occasion and thereafter, there was a panchayath held in the presence of Omkar Swamiji of Davanagere, one Hiremath and elders of the village in respect of giving custody of her son to them and not to claim anything from them or else they would defame her by making allegations of relationship with her brother-in-law. The petitioners being the mother and father of accused No.1 snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and detained her in their house and not allowed her to speak with her own parents and family members and they made her to speak only on their instructions. There were allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint. They have also said to be abused her, threatened her and snatched the mobile phone from her. It cannot be said that there is no harassment made by accused Nos.2 and 3, the present petitioners. The complainant has categorically stated in her complaint that they have also joined with accused No.1 and abused her in a filthy language and threatened to kill her and her son. They also obtained false confession letter

¶41

¶42

from her. Such being the case, the matter is required to be investigated by the Police and find out the truth whether petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also joined with accused No.1 in harassing the complainant. If at all, there is no evidence or material, then the Police may be at liberty to drop their names in the charge-sheet. But without investigating the matter in detail by the Police, the Court cannot directly jump to the conclusion to show that there is no allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3 in the FIR.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court cannot go into the minutest details in relation to every aspect of the case while quashing the FIR by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and at paragraph Nos.29, 30, 31 and 33, it is held as under:

¶44

11

¶45

“29. The High Court, in our view, failed to see the extent of its jurisdiction, which it possesses to exercise while examining the legality of any FIR complaining commission of several cognizable offences by the accused persons. In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof.

¶46

30. At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the complainants and vice versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such

¶47

¶48

material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.

¶49

31. In our considered opinion, once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.

¶50

33. The inherent powers of the High Court, which are obviously not defined being inherent in its very nature, cannot be stretched to any extent and nor can such powers be equated with the appellate powers of the High Court defined in the Code. The parameters laid down by this Court while exercising inherent powers must always be kept in mind else it would lead to committing the jurisdictional error in deciding the case. Such is the case here.”

¶51

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on looking to the fact of the case, the complainant has stated that accused No.1 was harassing her and accused Nos.2 and 3 were threatening her and

¶52

¶53

accused Nos.2 and 3 snatched her cell phone and abused her in filthy language which attracts Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and also detained her. They also colluded with accused No.1 in harassing the complainant is the matter to be investigated by the Police. It is also revealed that these petitioners have approached the Matadhipathis and elders of the villagers as panchayatdars. Therefore, the matter requires detailed investigation by the Police. At this stage, the Court cannot jump to the conclusion as there are no averments in the complaint. Therefore, I am of the view that the FIR against accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be quashed at this stage. If at all the Investigating Officer after the investigation finds no material against these petitioners, then the Investigating Officer can drop the proceedings against them at the time of filing the chargesheet.

¶54

Accordingly, criminal petition filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.150/2019 dated 19.11.2019 on the file of II

¶55

¶56

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru is hereby dismissed .

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

GBB

Sri Koradhanyamath K N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Koradhanyamath K 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Mudassir Vs State by

Sri M v Ramakrishnaiah Vs State by a C B Police

C.S.Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Amit Avasthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mehul Kiran Shah @ Mehul K Shah Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Rocket in Pocket LLP Vs State of Karnataka