Dismissed

Devadit W/O Agnel Andrade v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2022CRL.P/100412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash matrimonial proceedings (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC). The court held that the police had jurisdiction and specific allegations existed in the charge sheet, warranting opportunity for the prosecution to establish its case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. rejected.

Devadit W/O Agnel Andrade Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100412 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . DEVADIT W/O AGNEL ANDRADE, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: 74, KAAKAR STREET, CAMP, DIST. BELAGAVI – 01.

¶10

2 . LAVINA D/O AGNEL ANDRADE, AGE: 33, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. #74, KAAKAR STREET, CAMP, DIST. BELAGAVI -01.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.RAM P.GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHILA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD – 11.

¶15

2 . SMT. KOSUPADAD W/O ANTON ANDRADE AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NOW RESIDING AT: # 74, KAAKAR STREET, AMP, DIST: BELAGAVI -01

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SMT GEETHA K.M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE CASE REGISTERED BY MAHILA POLICE DATED 08.01.2021 IN CRIME No.2/2021 NOW THE CHARGE-SHEET IS FILED IN CC No.360/2021 ON 03.05.2021 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC II COURT BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSE No.2 AND 3.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.08.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.360/2021 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioners that based on the complaint filed by Smt.Kosupedad who is the daughter-inlaw of petitioner No.1 and sister-in-law of petitioner No.2, Cr.No.2/2021 came to be registered against the petitioners

¶25

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶26

¶27

and others and after conducting investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.360/2021 on 03.05.2021. The allegations made against the petitioners are false and the charge sheet filed is contrary to the facts, law and evidence on record. Without conducting proper investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed charge sheet and the trial Court has also taken cognizance without application of mind. No specific overt acts are alleged against the petitioners. The material placed in the charge sheet does not even remotely connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Though the alleged incident dated 06.01.2021 took place at Surate, however, the complaint is filed before the Belagavi Mahila Police and without jurisdiction the said police have filed charge sheet.

¶28

Learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted his arguments in the above terms and sought for allowing the petition quashing the further proceedings. In

¶29

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶30

¶31

support of the petition, he has relied upon the following decisions:

¶32

i) Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of police, Chennai and another¹ (Abraham Ajith’s Case)

¶33

ii) Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another² (Geeta Mehrotra’s Case)

¶34

iii) Subba Rao and others vs. State of Tenalgana and others³ (Suppa Rao’s Case)

¶35

iv) Shabnam Sheikh W/o. Arif Sheikh and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another⁴ (Shabnam Sheikh’s Case)

¶36

v) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others⁵ (Kahkashan Kausar’s case)

¶37

On the other hand the learned HCGP representing respondent No.1 and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 argued and submitted that after detailed

¶38

1 (2004) 8 SCC 100

¶39

2 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶40

3 (2018) 14 SCC 452

¶41

4 Crl. Application (APL) 114 of 2014

¶42

5 2022 Livelaw (SC) 141

¶43

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶44

¶45

investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 including the petitioners. A prima facie case is made out and it is for the prosecution to establish the same during the trial. In the light of the prima facie material, it would not be proper to quash the further proceedings and have sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶46

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the

¶47

record.

¶48

As per the complaint averments and the charge sheet, the marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 took place on 24.05.2006. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, gold ornaments weighing 35 gms, silver articles weighing 50 gms, household articles and furniture worth Rs.1,50,000/- were paid and marriage was performed by spending Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 complainant has alleged that after a period of six months, the accused persons started harassing and ill treating her to get money from her parents and they have also forcibly made her to file a suit for partition against her father. There is also allegation

¶49

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶50

¶51

that because respondent No.2 complainant gave birth two daughters, she was blamed for the same. Though the marriage of petitioner No.2 took place in 2009, she was in the habit of coming frequently to her parents and used to instigate her husband to assault respondent No.2 complainant and ultimately, during 2012 she was driven out of her matrimonial home.

¶52

6.1. It is also alleged that after intervention of the

¶53

elders of the community, though accused No.1 set up a separate residence at Belagavi, after some time accused No.1 as well as her husband started living with them and once again the harassment and ill treatment commenced. The father-in-law of respondent No.2 died on 18.09.2020 at Pune and after the ceremonies, once again all the accused persons started to harass and ill treat her and ultimately, she was once again driven out of her matrimonial home on 15.10.2020. The complaint also speaks about the incident dated 27.12.2020 at Khanapur and 06.01.2021 at Surate in

¶54

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶55

¶56

the parental home of the complainant, wherein accused No.1 picked up quarrel and assaulted her.

¶57

Based on the complaint, the respondent No.1 Police have investigated the matter and ultimately filed charge sheet. Charge sheet makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners and in the light of the material placed in the charge sheet, it would not be appropriate to quash the proceedings without providing the prosecution opportunity to establish the case against the petitioners. These may be valid grounds to urge at their defence before the trial Court.

¶58

So far as the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are concerned. In Abraham Ajith’s case, prosecution came to be quashed on the ground that the concerned police lacked jurisdiction. However, in the present case, the matrimonial offences alleged against the petitioners based on the several incidences, which have taken place within the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 P.S. and therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and therefore, this

¶59

CRL.P.No.100412/2022

¶60

¶61

decision is not applicable to the case on hand. In Geetha Mehrotra’s case, Shabnam Sheikh’s case, Subba Rao’s case and Kahkashan Kousar’s case, the prosecution came to be quashed on the ground that there were no specific allegations. However, in the present case, there are specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, these decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.

¶62

Thus, from the above discussion, I hold that there are no justifiable grounds to quash the prosecution against the petitioners and I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of

¶65

Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Devadit W/O Agnel Andrade v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devadit W/O Agnel Andrade 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

Sri Srinivas Manjunath Shetty Vs Asha Srinivas Shetty

Smt. Shakunthala W/O Kallappa Hosamani Vs M/S Gandhinagar Urban Co. -Operative

Dr Sunanda W/O Vasant Kabbur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Bhageerathi Alias Poonam Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Shrishail S/O Shivalingppa Sangolli Vs the State of Karnataka

Priyanka W/O Nishan Dodagoudar Vs the State of Karnataka