Dismissed

Sri Suresh S/O Mahadevappa Karaguppi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2022CRL.P/101697/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed the criminal petition filed to quash proceedings in a domestic violence case. The court held that the complaint prima facie established harassment and ill-treatment, and there were justifiable reasons for the delay in filing, making it not a fit case for quashing.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash proceedings against petitioners was dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

Sri Suresh S/O Mahadevappa Karaguppi Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101697 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101697 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SURESH S/O MAHADEVAPPA KARAGUPPI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HULIKATTI, TQ: GOKAK DIST: BELAGAVI-591344.

¶10

SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. MHADEVAPPA KARAGUPPI AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HULIKATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591344.

¶11

SRI MHADEVAPAP S/O MUDUKAPPA KARGUPPI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HULIKATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI-591344

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION GOKAK REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶16

SMT. SUJATHA W/O. SURESH KARGUPPI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HULIKATTI HALI KOLAVI,

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 101697 of 2022

¶19

TQ: GOKAK- 591344.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV., FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2016 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THEM IN C.C.NO.1635/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JMFC., GOKAK FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109, R/W. 34 OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused No.1 to 3 have filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1635/2016 on the file of the Principal JMFC, Gokak, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 read with section 34 of IPC.

¶26

Though this petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 101697 of 2022

¶29

It is the case of the petitioners that the

¶30

marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized about 6-7 years ago. After 2-3 years of the marriage, she gave birth to a daughter. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint dated 27.07.2017 alleging that for having given birth to a daughter, petitioners harassed and illtreated her and inspite of advice by the elders of the family, there was no change in their attitude. They went to the extent of threatening to take away her daughter and forcing her to sign divorce papers. Being aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings, petitioners have filed this petition.

¶31

Respondent No.1 has appeared through HCGP.

¶32

Respondent No.2 is duly served.

¶33

During the course of arguments, the learned

¶34

counsel for petitioners submitted that the registration of case against the petitioners is contrary to law, facts and material on record. No specific allegations are there against the petitioners. Bald and omnibus allegations are

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 101697 of 2022

¶37

made against the petitioners. The allegations does not attract the provisions of sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 read with section 34 of IPC. Petitioner No.1 diagnosed as mentally challenged person. To avoid the care and treatment to petitioner No.1, a false complaint is filed. There is delay in filing the complaint, which is not explained properly and prays to allow the petition.

¶38

On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that the complaint averments itself prima facie establish the harassment and ill-treatment meted out by the petitioners and it is for the prosecution to prove the same during trial and this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings and prays to dismiss the same.

¶39

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶40

Thus, petitioners are seeking quashing of

¶41

criminal proceedings against them alleging that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and only to harass the petitioners, false complaint is filed. It is also contended by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is suffering from

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 101697 of 2022

¶44

epilepsy and the certificate issued by the Krupamayi Institute for Mental Health and Neuro Science, Miraj, indicate that he is suffering from secondary epilepsy (H/o SOC – Tuberculoma).

¶45

9.1. The Criminal proceedings are initiated against the petitioners based on the complaint dated 26.07.2016. The complaint averments state that after 2-3 years of the marriage, when respondent No.2 gave birth to a daughter, petitioners started harassing and ill-treating her to get gold and cash. Though she was with the young child, they used to send her to coolie and to hill (Gudda) for collecting firewood. She tolerated the harassment as she is having a daughter. However, about 8-10 months prior to the filing of the complaint, the harassment increased with a threat that if she fails to give birth to a son petitioners are going to solemnize the second marriage of petitioner No.1 and told her to commit suicide by taking poison or jumping into the well. In spite of advise by the elders, the harassment did not stop. On the other hand, petitioner

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 101697 of 2022

¶48

No.1 used to assault her and petitioners 2 and 3 never

¶49

came to her rescue.

¶50

9.2. On the other hand, they used to leave the house to enable petitioner No.1 to assault her. Finally, not being able to bear with the harassment, she left the matrimonial

¶51

home. In fact, when she was in her parents house, petitioners came there and in the presence of elders of the family and also those persons who came to her rescue, assaulted her and gave threat of snatching away her daughter and also to give consent for divorce. About 4-5 days prior to the filing of the complaint also, petitioners assaulted her and demanded divorce and without any alternative, she has filed the complaint.

¶52

9.3. As rightly argued by the learned HCGP, in the complaint itself respondent No.2 has explained the reasons for delay in filing the complaint. Prima facie the complaint averments indicate that she has tried to adjust and tolerate the harassment meted out by the petitioners and when it became unbearable, she has left the

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 101697 of 2022

¶55

matrimonial home. Even after she left the matrimonial home, when petitioner did not stop the harassment, she has chosen to file the complaint. It is for the prosecution to establish the allegations made against the petitioners at the trial. Absolutely there are no justifiable reasons to interfere with the criminal proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶56

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

AC/YAN

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri Suresh S/O Mahadevappa Karaguppi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh S/O Mahadevappa Karaguppi 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

Shri Kondoji S/O Piroji Bosale Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Rangangouda S/O Shivangouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Vijaykumar S/O Shivrudrappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Pradeep S/O Mahaveer Halaki Vs State of Karnataka

Adiveppa S/O Shankar Kadgoudar Vs Abdulrazak S/O. Imamsaheb Yargatti

Sri. Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka