Allowed

H R Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2022CRL.P/3312/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing an FIR and charge sheet arising from matrimonial cruelty and alleged attempt to kill with kerosene. Court held proceedings were an abuse of process due to failure to record victim's statement under Section 161 CrPC despite it being a duty.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; Impugned FIR in Cr.No.287/2017 and the charge sheet filed therein are quashed.

H R Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3312 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H R MANJUNATH, S/O RAJENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶8

SMT NEELAMMA, W/O RAJENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶9

RAJENDRA REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶10

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE

¶11

RESIDENTS OF HALEVURU VILLAGE

¶12

ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DIST-562106. ... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.NEGLUR ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP BY SURYA NAGAR POLICE STATION,

¶17

BENGALURU SUB DIVISION,

¶18

BENGALURU-560099.

¶19

SMT NETRA, KOM H R MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶20

NO.2/35/1, YARAGONDA PALYAM

¶21

DEVAGONDAPALLI POST,

¶22

DENKANIKOTE TALUK

¶23

KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

¶24

TAMIL NADU-635114.

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.ROHITH.B.J-HCGP FOR R1 SRI. S.B.MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 21.08.2017 IN CRIME NO.0287/2017 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT SURYA NAGAR POLICE STATION ON THE FIRST INFORMATION OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT HEREIN AND SENT UP TO THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND CJM COURT, ANEKAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 16.02.2014 and she was subjected to cruelty by the accused No.1-husband and petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 parents-in-law and on 20.08.2017 petitioners-accused tried to kill her by pouring kerosene.

¶32

Police after investigation submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 307 R/w 34 of IPC.

¶33

The learned magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforementioned offences. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet has been filed without recording the statement of victim and as such, charge sheet filed only on the basis of statement of the complainant witness is impermissible. He further submits that during the pendency of this petition, the marriage of the respondent No.2 with accused No.1 has been dissolved and in pursuance

¶36

of the said decree, the respondent No.2 has remarried.

¶37

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for State would submits that charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioner-accused have committed the aforesaid offences and merely because statement of victim is not recorded the same will not vitiate charge sheet when the charge sheet material discloses the commission of offences and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

I have examined submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

Respondent No.2 lodged FIR against petitioners-

¶40

accused for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statement of mother of the

¶41

¶42

victim and other witnesses and after conducting investigation, submitted charge sheet with the jurisdictional magistrate. However, police during the course of investigation has not recorded the statement of the victim.

¶43

In Rajesh Gutta vs. State of A.P. and Ors reported in 2011 Cri L J 3506, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has

¶44

observed as follows:

¶45

“ 7. …… the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. …… . This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant's version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.”

¶46

¶47

In view of the dictum in Rajesh Gutta (supra), the Investigation officer was required to find out the probability and truthfulness of complaint unless otherwise the victim’s version is recorded. Investigation Officer should confirm all the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person and record the statement as per under section 161 CrPC.

¶48

Section 161 of CrPC runs as follows:

¶49

“161. Examination of witnesses by police.

¶50

(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶51

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

¶52

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records .”

¶53

¶54

The statement of victim having not been

¶55

recorded, the charge sheet submitted only on the basis of statements of mother of the victim and other witnesses in the absence of any compelling reasons for not recording the statement of the victim is without any substance and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners will be an abuse of process of law since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak. Accordingly, pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶58

Impugned FIR in Cr.No.287/2017 registered by Surya

¶59

Nagar Police Station, Anekal taluk, Bengaluru and also charge sheet filed in the said Cr.No.287/2017 are hereby quashed.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

H R Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H R Manjunath 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Manjunath Vs Suresh Mahalingappa Latur

B.K. Manju Vs State by Bagalur Police

Brundha Vs State by K R Nagara Police

Abdul Rehaman Vs H B Mohammed

Sri N G Chandregowda Vs State by Saraswathipuram Police Station

J Gnanendra Kumar Vs the Chief Secretary