Allowed

Brundha v. State by K R Nagara Police

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2022CRL.P/3669/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against petitioner as accused No.4 in C.C. No.707/2018 involving Section 498A IPC. It held that cognizance under Section 494 IPC required a private complaint, and the charge sheet violated Section 198 CrPC. It also held the petitioner was not a relative under Section 498A IPC. The proceedings against petitioner were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.707/2018 against the petitioner as Accused No.4 were quashed.

Brundha Vs State by K R Nagara Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3669/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BRUNDHA D/O EESHWARA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT D NO.51, 10^TH J.P. NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 78.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY K R NAGARA POLICE, MYSURU DISTRICT,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SHASHIKALA S W/O MANJUNATH R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT LALANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASAVARAJAPURA, K R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1.

¶18

SRI. V. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ORDER DATED 25.07.2018 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,494 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC DATED 28.07.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., K.R.NAGAR IN C.C.NO.707/2018.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The police after the investigation submitted the charge

¶24

sheet alleging that the accused No.1 during the subsistence of the first marriage with the 2nd respondent contracted the second marriage with the petitioner - accused No.4. It is further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2 and accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.1.

¶25

The learned Magistrate accepted the charge sheet

¶26

and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 114, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Taking

¶27

¶28

exception to the same, the petitioner - accused No.4 is before this Court.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.4 submits that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner - accused No.4 is one without authority of law since the cognizance can be taken for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC only upon a complaint in writing by an aggrieved person as specified under Section 198 of Cr.PC. He further submits that the petitioner - accused No.4 does not fall under the definition of relative so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submit that the accused No.1 having contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the 2nd respondent and also having subjected the 2nd respondent to cruelty has committed the aforesaid offences and the cognizance taken by

¶31

¶32

the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

The allegation against the petitioner - accused No.4 is that she has contracted the second marriage with the accused No.1 during the subsistence of his with the 2nd respondent. Section 198 of Cr.PC specifies that the learned Magistrate can take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC only upon a complaint in writing by an aggrieved person. Hence, the cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC against the petitioner - accused No.4 on the basis of the report submitted by the police after the investigation is one without authority of law.

¶35

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, husband or relative of husband of a woman should subject her to cruelty. In the present case, the petitioner - accused No.4 is not the relative of the husband of respondent

¶36

¶37

No.2 as defined under Section 498A of IPC and in the absence of any corroborative material and only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation that the petitioner - accused No.4 has contracted the second marriage with the accused No.1 and also subjected her to cruelty, the charge sheet submitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is also impermissible.

¶38

In view of preceding analysis, I am of the considered

¶39

view, that the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner - accused No.4 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.707/2018

¶43

pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K R Nagar, insofar as it relates to petitioner - accused No.4 is hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

bkm

Brundha v. State by K R Nagara Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brundha v. State by K R Nagara Police

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

M/S Spi Green Energy Vs the State of Karnataka

Rosemary Ratnam Vs Anam Hussain (Minor)

Sri.D. Chandrashekara Vs the State of Karnataka by

Subramanya Vs State by

M. Manjunath Vs Suresh Mahalingappa Latur

B.K. Manju Vs State by Bagalur Police