Partly allowed

Smt Sharadhamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2022CRL.P/3008/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka addressed requests to quash criminal proceedings. In one, the petition to quash proceedings against Petitioners in C.C.No.27746/2017 was dismissed due to lack of special grounds. In another, the petition to quash proceedings in C.C.No.8786/2020 relating to the petitioner was allowed because the private

What did the court decide?

In CRL.P. 4354/2018, dismissed. In CRL.P. 3008/2022, petition allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.8786/2020 quashed.

Smt Sharadhamma Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018

¶3

C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4354 OF 2018 C/W.

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3008/2022

¶10

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4354/2018:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. BULLAIAH S/O. LATE SRI BAILAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶13

SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O. SRI G. V. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶14

SMT. BHAGYA W/O. SRI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶15

SMT. KALAMMA W/O. SRI GANGA THIMMAIAH @ BULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶16

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SRI KRISHNA S/O. SRI GANGA THIMMAIAH @ BULLAIAH

¶18

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶19

ALL OF THE ABOVE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.18, VENKATAYYANAPALYA IN FRONT OF KEB BAICHAPUR ROAD MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI HARI PRASAD M.B., ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION BANGALORE

¶26

SMT. ENJULAMMA W/O. SRI VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 11 HOSAGURAPPANA PALYA 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 9^TH CROSS BANNERAGATTA ROAD D. C. R. POST, BENGALURU - 560029

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI BHASKAR BABU, ADV. FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE CASE FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, SMT.ENJULAMMA, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION IPC 1860 (427,506,34,504,380,448,323) IN C.C.NO.27746/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT.

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018

¶32

C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶33

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3008/2022:

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O. SRI G. V. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶36

SRI. GANGA THIMMAIAH @ BULLAIAH S/O. LATE SRI BAILAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶37

SMT. KALAMMA W/O. SRI GANGA THIMMAIAH @ BULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶38

SRI KRISHNA S/O. SRI GANGA THIMMAIAH @ BULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶39

ALL OF THE ABOVE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.18, VENKATAYYANAPALYA IN FRONT OF KEB BAICHAPUR ROAD MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120

¶40

ASHWATHAPPA S/O. CHIN VENKATAMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS GANAKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT

¶41

…PETITIONERS

¶42

(BY SRI HARI PRASAD M.B., ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION REP. BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR

¶45

SRI VENKATASWAMY

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶48

S/O. SRI LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO. 11,HOSAGURAPPANA PALYA 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 9^TH CROSS BANNERAGATTA ROAD D. C. R. POST, BENGALURU - 560029

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI BHASKAR BABU, ADV. FOR R2)

¶51

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE CASE FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, SRI VENKATESH, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 504 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.8786/2020 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU.

¶52

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

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for following

¶55

reliefs:

¶56

i. Call for records,

¶57

ii. Quash the entire proceedings arising out of the registration of the case filed by respondent No.2, Smt.Enjulamma, for alleged offences under Sections IPC 1860 (427, 506, 34, 504, 380, 448, 323) in C.C.No.27746/2017 against the Petitioners pending before the Hon'ble VI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court.

¶58

iii. Grant such other equitable relief deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interests of justice and equity.

¶59

¶60

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶61

The complainant in Crl.P.No.4354/2018 is the

¶62

mother-in-law of petitioner No.2 and the complainant in Crl.P.3008/2022 is the father-in-law of petitioner No.1. Both the mother-in-law and father-in-law have filed separate complaints alleging that on 31.08.2015 at about 1.30 p.m., the petitioners barged into the house of complainants and assaulted them. The mother-in-law contending that she had suffered various injuries on account of assault and father-in-law contending that he had been assaulted by a club. Due to which, he had suffered various injuries and as such, alleging that criminal offences have been committed. Upon the matter being investigated, 'B' report came to be filed and a Protest Petition having been filed. The same came to be considered by the learned Magistrate and after recording statement of certain other witnesses, the 'B' report was set-aside and cognizance was taken. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶63

¶64

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶65

The contention of Sri Hari Prasad M.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the alleged incident having occurred on 31.08.2015, the complaint came to be lodged on 09.10.2015, the delay of nearly 39 days which has not been explained and as such, he submits that the complaint itself is a false complaint. He further submits that the respondents have been filing false complaints against the petitioners and her family members in as much as there have been 10 complaints which have been filed and 2 suits which are pending against each other. which have all occurred as a result of petitioner No.2 filing proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC. He submits that there is no veracity in the allegations which have been made. The complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioners, and as such, the present petition may be allowed.

¶66

Per contra, Sri Bhaskar Raju, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in both the petitions, would submit that there is no particular delay having been caused

¶67

¶68

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶69

inasmuch as respondent No.2 has sought to file a complaint when being taken in a hoysala to the Police Station. However, the Police refused to take the complaint stating that the dispute is a matrimonial in nature. Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. who also did not take any action and thereafter, the present complaint came to be registered.

¶70

The late registration of the complaint cannot be held against the complainant inasmuch as the delay is on account of the police authorities and not account of the complainants. He submits that there is no delay. He further submits that there are various proceedings which have been filed by both the parties against each other which are still pending. He submits that the petitioners have barged into the house, the allegation that the said fact happened or not is subject to trial and cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 482

¶71

Cr.P.C.

¶72

¶73

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶74

Heard Sri Hari Prasad M.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State and Sri Bhaskara Babu, learned appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the papers.

¶75

Admittedly, there are nearly 10 complaints, which have been filed by the parties against each other, apart from two original suits. There appears to be several disputes between the parties that are going on, which have also resulted in the aforesaid complaints. As regards the contention of Sri Hari Prasad M.B. that there delay in filing of the complaint, the same in my considered opinion has been explained; whether the explanation is true or not, it would have to be decided by the trial Court after trial. At this stage, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the explanation is correct or wrong without a trial being held.

¶76

¶77

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶78

The other aspects relating to the incident whether the mother-in-law has suffered simple injuries or not whether the same can be punished under Section 323 or not; Whether any club is used to assault the fatherin-law or not are also not aspects which can be considered by this Court while considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, there being no particular ground which would require this Court to exercise the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, I pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i. The Criminal Petition No.4354/2018 is

¶81

dismissed.

¶82

ii. All contentions and defences are left open to be taken up before the trial Court.

¶83

iii. The trial Court to decide on the matter being uninfluenced by any of the statements and observations made in the present order.

¶84

10 -

¶85

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶86

In Criminal Petition No. 3008/2022:

¶87

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for following reliefs:

¶88

i. Call for the records in C.C.No.8768/2020 VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and

¶89

ii. Quash the entire proceedings arising out of the registration of the case filed by respondent No.2, Sri Venkatesh, for alleged offences under Sections 323, 324 and 504 of IPC in C.C.No.8786/2020 against the Petitioners in the VI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

¶90

iii. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶91

The contention of Sri Hari Prasad M.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the complaint in PCR No.11610/2016 falls foul of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758, more particularly, paragraphs 21, 31 and 32 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶92

"21. In CREF Finance Ltd. v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd.[5], the Court while dealing with the power of Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences, has opined that having considered the complaint, the Magistrate may consider it appropriate to send the complaint to the police

¶93

11 -

¶94

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶95

for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶96

And again:

¶97

"When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under [pic]Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3)."

¶98

31. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and quash the registration of the FIR in case Crime No.298 of 2011, registered with Police Station, Bhelupur, District Varanasi, U.P.

¶99

32. A copy of the order passed by us be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts by the Registry of this Court so that the High Courts would circulate the same amongst the learned Sessions Judges who, in turn, shall circulate it among the learned Magistrates so that they can remain more vigilant and diligent while exercising the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C."

¶100

He submits that there are no particular allegations

¶101

which have been made in the private complaint stating that the complainant had approached the

¶102

12 -

¶103

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶104

jurisdictional police to register a complaint which was not done, he had approached the higher officers who also did not take any action. Thereafter, constraining the complainant to approach the Magistrate by filing a private complaint. He further submits that the said private complaint is also not accompanied by verifying affidavit.

¶105

Having gone through the private complaint, I am of the considered opinion that the requirement laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case has not been followed, as such, I pass the following:

¶106

ORDER

¶107

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶108

ii. The proceedings in PCR No.11610/2016 and consequent Crime No.1079/2016 registered by MICO Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 324 and 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.

¶109

13 -

¶110

CRL.P No. 4354 of 2018 C/W. CRL.P.No.3008/2022

¶111

iii. Liberty is however reserved to the respondent/complaint to comply with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case and file a fresh complaint.

¶112

Sd/JUDGE

¶113

Smt Sharadhamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sharadhamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iti Limited Vs Alphion Corporation

Mr K Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs Mr Salim Baig

Sri. B. R. Nagaraj Vs Sri. Chandra

Smt Anuradha Bharath Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt Aruna Kannur Vs the State of Karnataka by

Rakshith Vs the State of Karnataka by