Allowed

Mr M Srinivas v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2022CRL.P/1391/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed proceedings Special Case No.5/2020 specifically against the petitioners (relatives of the accused), despite charges of abduction and sexual assault against other parties.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Special Case No.5/2020 stood quashed qua the petitioners.

Mr M Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1391 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.M.SRINIVAS S/O LATE MARIAPPA AGED 51 YEARS.

¶9

MRS. ANNAMMA W/O MR.M.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶10

MR. ANAND S/O MR.M. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶11

MR. KIRAN KUMAR S/O MR. M SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT THIMMEGOWDANA PALYA TATHAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶14

MRS. MANJULA W/O MR.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶17

MR. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶18

PETITIONER NOS.5 & 6 ARE R/AT NO.149, 8^TH CROSS NEAR ORCHARD SCHOOL, NAIDU LAYOUT KONANAKUNTE CROSS BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE BENGALURU THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS HIGH COURT BUILDINGS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶23

MRS.CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT VAJRAPPA BUILDING PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE ROAD THALAGHATTAPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 109.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶26

SRI N.KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN SPL.CASE NO.5/2020 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/SPL.JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 376, 120B OF IPC AND SEC.4, 5(1), 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.5/2020, pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 120B of the IPC and Sections 4, (5)(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶35

Heard Sri I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned counsel for

¶36

the petitioners, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri N. Kempegowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶37

Brief facts of the case that leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition are that:

¶38

The second respondent is the complainant - mother of the alleged victim. The victim was in love with the son of the first petitioner. On 13.06.2019, it transpires that the victim goes missing, and on the victim going missing, the second respondent - complainant registers a missing complaint, which becomes a crime in crime No.117/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. Later, it transpires that, after about three months, accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant get married. After which, the police pursuant to the investigation filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶41

376, 363 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 4, (5)(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶42

The petitioners are the father, mother, brothers aunt and uncle of accused No.1, who is now the husband of the daughter of the complainant. Filing of the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend in vehemence that there are no allegations against the petitioners – father, mother, brothers and the uncle. The only allegation is against the aunt that is, petitioner No.5 – accused No.6, who is alleged to have kept the victim along with accused No.1 after they had eloped and a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC is registered. Except this allegation, there is no allegation even in the charge sheet against any other petitioners - accused in the case at hand.

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶46

On the other hand, learned counsel for second respondent would submit that accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant are married and have a child from the wedlock and are happily living. The petitioners and second respondent - complainant are also in cordial terms and living happily and therefore, he will not make any submission on the merit of the matter.

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that even though the learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2 submit that the parties to the lis are living happily, that would not stall the State from continuing the prosecution in the teeth of the offences being punishable as afore-quoted. He would submit that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean in the trial.

¶48

¶49

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶50

The afore-quoted facts and the link in the chain are not in dispute. The relationship between the petitioners, the relatives of accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant is also not in dispute. The allegations against the petitioners – accused No.2 to 7 are that, they all have made arrangements to get the daughter married to accused No.1. The marriage has admittedly taken place after the daughter of the complainant attaining the age of 18 years.

¶51

The entire allegations narrated are from the date

¶52

of couple getting eloped i.e., three months prior to the marriage, at which relevant point in time, the victim was 17 years and 9 months, which is the same, even according to the report of the doctor, appended to the petition. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the statement recorded by the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge, assumes significance and it reads as follows:

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶55

“ ¸ÁQëAiÄ£À Äß PÀ gÀ ¹ ¥É æªÀ iÁtÀ ÃPÂ j¸À ¯Á¬ÄvÀ Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ .03À -10-2019

¶56

¸ÀAvÀæ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉ:

¶57

£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß ºÀÄqÀÄQzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä EµÀÖ EgÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ D ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÀ¢zÀÝ° £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ §qÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ M¥Àà¢zÁÝUÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß 2019gÀ DUÀ¸ïÖ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÆwð MAzÀÄ gÀÆ«Ä£À°è PÀÆr ºÁQzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï 2£ÉÃ vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ vÀ¦à¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ EµÀÖ ¥ÀlÖ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À eÉÆvÉ aPÀÌ wgÀÄ¥ÀwAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀÆr ºÁQ ªÀÄzsÀÆ¸ÀÆzÀgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß CPÀÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄzsÀÄ¸ÀÆzÀgïgÀªÀjUÉ vÀÄA¨Á vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ªÀÄzsÀÄ¸ÀÆzÀgïgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹zÁÝgÉ.”

¶58

The victim clearly narrates that it was the instigation

¶59

of the mother that lead to registration of a crime and mother of the complainant herein locked the victim and kept her in her house throughout and have tortured the husband - accused No.1 and their relatives.

¶60

Even otherwise, the allegations will have to be substantiated by accused No.1 or the complainant, as the

¶61

¶62

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶63

case would be in a full blown trial or otherwise. The petitioners who are the parents of accused No.1 who have nothing to do with the allegations are hauled into the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and POCSO Act as afore-quoted. Therefore, permitting further proceedings to continue against them would become an abuse of the process of law and would result in miscarriage of justice as there are no ingredient that would touch upon the offence punishable under Section 376 or 363 of the IPC, alleged against them, in the case at hand.

¶64

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶67

ii. The proceedings in Special Case No.5/2020, pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural

¶68

10 -

¶69

CRL.P No. 1391 of 2021

¶70

District, Bengaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioners.

¶71

iii. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order would not come in the way of conducting further proceedings against any other accused in any other judicial fora.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

NVJ

Mr M Srinivas v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr M Srinivas 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

Ammeraal Beltech (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Roche Arockia Raj M Vs State of Karnataka

Panchaksharaiah Vs Smt. C. M. Yogitha

Naveenkumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Pushpa G N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Udaykiran @ Kiran Vs State of Karnataka