Allowed

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022CRL.P/100776/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings (CC No.1417/2015) against six petitioners. The court found the criminal allegations were fabricated to bypass a civil court decree in a property dispute, constituting an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the pending criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1417/2015 before JMFC-IV Court, Belagavi, were quashed.

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100776 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100776 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI.SURYAKANT S/O GOPALL CHAVAN AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.77/2, OUT OF R.S. NO.48/1, VIDYANAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI.

¶10

SHRI.SACHIN S/O SURYAKANT CHAVAN AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.77/2, OUT OF R.S. NO.48/1, VIDYANAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI.

¶11

SHRI.SAGAR S/O SURYAKANT CHAVAN AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.77/2, OUT OF R.S. NO.48/1, VIDYANAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI.

¶12

SMT.SUREKHA W/O SURYAKANT CHAVAN AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.77/2, OUT OF R.S. NO.48/1, VIDYANAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI.

¶13

¶14

CRL.P No. 100776 of 2017

¶15

SMT.KRISHNABAI W/O MARUTI JADHAV AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MANGALI, MADAGAON, GOA.

¶16

SMT.PRAMILA W/O SACHIN CHAVAN AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.77/2, OUT OF R.S. NO.48/1, VIDYANAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, TILAKWADI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶21

SMT.ASHA W/O ROOPESH CHAVAN AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.77/, VIDYANAGAR 4^TH CROSS, ANGOL, BELAGAVI.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1) (R2 - SERVED)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2015 IN CC NO.1417/2015 ON THE FILE OF JMFC-IV COURT, BELAGAVI PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.06.2014 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-B, THE FIR DATED 14.06.2014 AND CHARGE SHEET DATED 11.03.2015 FILED IN CRIME NO.95/2014 OF

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 100776 of 2017

¶27

TILAKWADI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C & E RESPECTIVELY.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

A FIR was lodged by the second respondent alleging that the petitioners-accused on 14.06.2014 forcibly entered into her house, abused her and her brother-in law in filthy language and also assaulted them. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioners-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The learned Magistrate, after accepting the charge sheet, has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and has issued summons to the petitioners-accused. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

petitioners-accused submits that the FIR was lodged by the second respondent so as to circumvent the judgment

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 100776 of 2017

¶35

and decree passed in O.S. No.55/2009 whereby the father-in-law and other family members of the second respondent were directed to pay earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- to petitioner No.1 herein with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. Hence, he submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture so as to wreak vengeance against the petitioners-accused.

¶36

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences, and the learned Magistrate on perusal of the material on record, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶38

learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 100776 of 2017

¶41

On perusal of the judgment and decree passed

¶42

in O.S. No.55/2009, it is seen that the first petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.293/2013 for partition and separate possession of the subject property against the father-in-law and other family members of the second respondent. It is also undisputed that the jurisdictional civil court decreed O.S.No.55/2009 instituted by petitioner No.1 whereby father-in-law and other family members of the second respondent were directed to return the earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. It is only thereafter, the second respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioners criminally trespassed into the house property and also assaulted her and her brother-in-law. There is no specific allegation as to how and in what manner the petitioners assaulted the second respondent and her brother-in-law, except making omnibus and general allegations. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given criminal texture so as to wreak vengeance against the petitioners-

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 100776 of 2017

¶45

accused and to circumvent the judgment and decree

¶46

passed in O.S. No.55/2009.

¶47

For the foregoing discussion, the continuation of

¶48

the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.1417/2015 pending on the file of JMFC-IV Court, Belagavi, is hereby quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KMS

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan v. the 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

Kuppam Ramaiyer Sridhara Murthi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

R Surendra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmi. C. Shekhar Vs the Commissioner

Tarunkumar S/O Kenchappa Malagali Vs the Secretary (Pri and Seco.)

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Annapurna W/O Chennappa Mali @ Balikai Vs Shri.Chennappa S/O Kallappa Mali @ Balikari