Allowed

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022CRL.P/308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Bail Petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application in a private prosecution involving a family dispute over property. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the prosecution orders due to lack of specific injury allegations for offences under Sections 323/324 IPC and noting the Complainant's delay, leading to termination of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; application for discharge allowed; proceedings terminated.

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 308 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

LAKSHMAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶11

LALITHA KUMARI D/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶12

KAMALAMMA

¶13

D/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶14

HONNAPPA

¶15

S/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶16

ANANDA

¶17

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

¶18

S/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶19

KALAVATHI W/O HONNPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶20

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6 RESIDING AT MARALURU TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU – 572 105.

¶21

¶22

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶23

RANGANATHA

¶24

S/O MOOGA BYATANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶25

R/AT JAVARANAYAKANAPALYA VILLAGE DASENAHALLI MAJARE MEDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 175.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SMT.ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶30

BY JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION

¶31

TUMAKURU CITY

¶32

REPRESENTED BY

¶33

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 01.

¶34

GANGAMMA

¶35

W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA MARALURU, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU KARNATAKA – 572 105.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 – SERVED)

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.80/2018 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU ON 30.10.2019 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISCHARGE THEM OF OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 324, 427, 506

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶41

R/W 149 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.748/2017 DATED 06.09.2018 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question order dated 30^th October, 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2018, whereby, the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, affirmed the order dated 6^th September, 2018 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru, in C.C.No.748 of 2017, rejecting the application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 324, 427, 506 r/w. 149 of the IPC.

¶45

Heard Smt. K.Abhinaya, learned counsel for the

¶46

petitioners and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶49

Brief facts as projected by the prosecution, are as

¶50

follows:-

¶51

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant / 2^nd respondent had received 23 guntas of landed property from her late husband in Sy.No.37/4 B1, out of 1 acre and 07 guntas, where she had constructed a house in the said property and was residing there with her children. It is the case of the complainant that on 10-09-

¶52

2016, at around 1 p.m. petitioner Nos.1 to 7 came near the house, picked up a fight with the complainant during which time, the 4^th petitioner took huge stone and threw on the power tiller that was parked in front of the complainant’s house and that, when CWs-2 and 3 questioned the petitioners as to why they were behaving like that, they further created ruckus and damaged chairs and tables of the hotel which was constructed in the said

¶53

land. On 15-09-2016, after five days of the said incident which happened on 10.09.2016, a complaint comes to be

¶54

¶55

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶56

registered against the petitioners in Crime No.81 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 323, 324, 427,.506 and 149 of the IPC. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C.No.748 of 2017.

¶57

After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners filed discharge application before the learned Magistrate seeking their discharge from the array of accused in C.C.No.748 of 2017. This came to be dismissed by an order of the learned Magistrate on 06.09.2018. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2018, before learned Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 30^th October 2019, dismissed the revision petition. It is these orders that are called in question before this Court with a consequential relief of their discharge from the proceedings.

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶60

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶61

submits that the complainant and the petitioners are members of the same family and a suit for partition and separate possession with regard to the suit schedule properties is pending between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent in O.S.No.154 of 2006. Pressure was brought in against the petitioners for withdrawal of the suit and the petitioners did not accede to the request of the complainant and her children to withdraw the said suit. It is on that ground, the problem arose on a particular day i.e., 10.09.2016. The learned counsel would submit that the entire episode narrated by the complainant is all false as who have suffered and who have been beaten are the petitioners by the complainant and her sons. The 1^st petitioner had in fact been admitted to the District Hospital, Tumkuru, as she was assaulted by the 2^nd respondent and her children. There is no wound certificate produced by the complainant or collected during the

¶62

¶63

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶64

investigation that would demonstrate that the complainant

¶65

was in fact assaulted.

¶66

The learned High Court Government Pleader would

¶67

however seek to refute the submissions to contend that

¶68

the petitioners are prima facie guilty of the offences and

¶69

have to come out clean in the trial.

¶70

The 2^nd respondent complainant dies during the pendency of these proceedings.

¶71

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶72

It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the complainant belong to the same family and have generated a civil dispute between themselves by filing a suit for partition. The said suit in O.S.No.154 of 2006, is

¶73

¶74

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶75

pending consideration before the concerned Court. The alleged incident has happened on 10-09-2016. The allegation is that, the petitioners have assaulted the complainant and her children. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the crime that is registered by the complainant on 15-09-2016, which reads as follows:

¶76

“ gÀªÀjUÉ, dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgÀªÀjUÉ vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ ¯ÉÃ. §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ 65 ªÀµÀðzÀ PÀÄgÀÄ§ d£ÁAUÀzÀ UÀAUÀªÀÄä DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ §gÉ¹PÉÆlÖ zÀÆgÀÄ.

¶77

K£ÉAzÀgÉ ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.37/4 © 1 gÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà£À (¯ÉÃ) ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ 1 JPÀgÉ 7 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÉÊQ 23 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §A¢zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ fÃªÀ£À £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃªÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.09.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1 WÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà ¯ÉÃ gÁªÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà£À ºÉAqÀw ®PÀëöäªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ®°vÀ, PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä UÀAqÀÄªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÁzÀ ºÉÆ£Àß¥Àà, D£ÀAzÀ (D£ÉAiÀÄ¥Àà) ºÉÆ£Àß¥Àà£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ PÀ¯ÁªÀw D£ÉAiÀÄ¥Àà£À ¨ÁªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À£ÁzÀ gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ J¯ÁègÀÄ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ KPÁKQ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¤AwzÀÝ ¥ÀªÀgï mÉ®ègï ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆ£Àß¥Àà ¸ÉÊeï PÀ®è£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ JwÛºÁQ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÉÆ¸ÉAiÀiÁzÀ «ÄÃ£ÁPÀëªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ gÁd

¶78

¶79

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶80

ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ KPÁKQ F jÃw KPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃgÉAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ ®°vÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ K£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛÃgÀ PÁA¥ËAqï UÉÆÃqÉ ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀ¼ÀÄ. DUÀ eÉÆÃgÁV QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÉªÀÅ. ®°vÀ EªÀgÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁV QgÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉ ZÉ£ÁßV ºÉÆqÉ¬Äj K£ÁzÀgÀÄ DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï PÉÆÃmïð£À°è £ÉÆÃrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É ºÉzÀgÀ¨ÉÃr JAzÀÄ PÀÄªÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝAvÉ PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ PÀÆzÀ®£ÀÄß J¼ÉzÁr PÁ°¤AzÀ UÀAUÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «ÄÃ£ÁPÀëªÀÄäUÉ MzÀÝ¼ÀÄ. PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®°vÀªÀÄä «ÄÃ£ÁPÀëªÀÄä¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÀÄ. ®°vÀªÀÄä ºÉÆ£Àß¥Àà ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ©¢ÝzÀÝ zÉÆuÉÚ¬ÄAzÀ gÁd£À PÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÀÄ. CµÀÖgÀ°è UÀ¯ÁmÉ ±À§Þ PÉÃ½ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è EzÀÝ ¨Á§Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ CAUÀr ¥ÉèÃ¤AUï «ÄµÀ£Àß°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï §AzÀÄ KPÉ F jÃw CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛ¢ÝÃgÉAzÀÄ PÉÃ½ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉÆAqÀÄ DUÀ ºÉÆ£Àß¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D£ÉAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï PÁA¥ÉÆÃAqÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÁgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄzÀÝ°¬ÄAzÀ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆ£Àß¥Àà£À PÉÊ°zÀÝ zÉÆuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©¸ÁrzÀ F ¢£À ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ©nÖzÉÝÃ£É ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á§Ä ¨ÁgÀzÉ EzÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝªÀÅ. ºÉÃVzÀÝgÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAV ¯ÁAiÀÄgï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è UÉ®ÄèªÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ 7 d£ÀgÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ CPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À ªÀiÁr ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï£À°ègÀÄªÀ bÉÃgÀÄ mÉÃ§¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀªÀgï læ®ègï mÁæPÀÖgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ®PÀë ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀÄªÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀgÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹zÀgÀÄ F 7 d£ÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À »jAiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ

¶81

10 -

¶82

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶83

§AzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ CtÚ vÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ E°è DVgÀÄªÀ £ÀµÀÖªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀjAzÀ PÀnÖ¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÁzÀgÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃgÀ°®è CzÀjAzÁV 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀqÀªÁV oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃªÉ.

¶84

EAw «zsÉÃAiÀÄ”

¶85

The crime is registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 149 of the IPC. The police after investigation have also filed a charge sheet in the matter. Both the complaint and the charge sheet would indicate that an incident of assault had happened on 10-09-2016 and the complainant was injured. For demonstration of injury of the complainant, there is no wound certificate appended to the petition or collected by the police during investigation.

¶86

On other hand, the contention of the learned

¶87

counsel appearing for the petitioners would sound acceptance as the 1^st petitioner was admitted to the District Hospital on injuries sustained owing to assault and petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were also treated as out-patients at the District Hospital on 10-09-2016. The documents

¶88

11 -

¶89

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶90

would show that though injuries were simple in nature, but were sustained during the squabble and treatment was taken on the same day. But, the impugned complaint by the 2^nd respondent/complainant is registered on 15-092016 after 6 days of the incident. The complaint of the petitioners against the complainant is registered on 20-092016. It is on this ground the learned High Court Government Pleader contends that there is a delay in registration of the complaint by the petitioners and therefore, the complaint of the petitioners is an afterthought.

¶91

For offences punishable under Sections 323 or 324 of the IPC sustaining of injury is imperative as Section 324 of the IPC deals with causing grievous hurt by usage of deadly weapon and there should be some semblance of injury sustained. It is the petitioners who have produced documents to demonstrate that in fact, they were injured in the incident and have registered the complaint against

¶92

12 -

¶93

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶94

the complainant and have also demonstrated by producing documents to show that the complaint was not initially accepted for the matter being purely civil in nature and only after the complainant had filed the complaint on 15.09.2016, the complaint of the petitioners was accepted by the police on 20-06-2016. Finding no allegation that would touch upon the offence punishable under Section 323 or 324 of the IPC, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶95

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶96

O R D E R

¶97

(i) The Criminal petition is allowed.

¶98

(ii) The Order dated 30^th October, 2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2018 and order dated 6^th September, 2018 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru in C.C.No.748 of 2017 are quashed.

¶99

13 -

¶100

CRL.P No. 308 of 2020

¶101

(iii) The application filed by the petitioners in C.C.No.748 of 2017 before the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Tumkuru seeking their discharge from the proceedings, is allowed.

¶102

(iv) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence any other proceedings of the parties before the authorities.

¶103

Sd/JUDGE

¶104

CT: mj

¶105

NVJ

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmamma 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

Sri Nagaraj N Vs State of Karnataka

B N Krishna Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Bhagath R Vs State of Karnataka

Kum. Nayana Kumar H P Vs the Secretary, Social Welfare Department

Smt M Latha Vs the State of Karnataka

Geetha v Vs the State of Karnataka