Partly allowed

Sri. Saravana Kumar v. Smt. Jayaprabha. N

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2022CRL.P/6850/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC prayed for quashing of proceedings against in-laws in a domestic cruelty case. The court quashed proceedings against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 due to lack of specific allegations and the charge against petitioner no. 1 under Section 109 IPC was also quashed, leaving only the charge under Section 498A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against Petitioner NOS. 2 and 3 are quashed. Charge under Section 109 IPC against Petitioner No. 1 is quashed. Charge under Section 498A IPC against Petitioner No. 1 stands.

Sri. Saravana Kumar Vs Smt. Jayaprabha. N — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 6850 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6850 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SARAVANA KUMAR S/O. P.K. MURUGESAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT B1103, NAGARJUNA NEAR MOTHER DAIRY, ASTER PARK YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶9

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SMT. P.K. MAHALAKSHMI W/O. P.K. MURUGESAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.4/1B, KRISHNA NAGAR SAKITHI ILLAM VIDYANAGAR SALEM - 635 003.

¶11

SMT. SRI VIDYA D/O. P.K. MURUGESAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.50/66, KOVALAN 3RD STREET, TEACHER COLONY ERODE - 688 011.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. JAYAPRABHA N. W/O. P.M. SARAVANA KUMAR

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 6850 of 2018

¶18

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.115, SFS, 7B CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION BENGALURU

¶20

NOW REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R.2; SMT. BABY SINDHU P., ADVOCATE FOR R.1 (ABSENT))

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.21438/2018, ON THE FILE OF 44TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 109 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by initiation of the proceedings in CC No.21438/2018 on the file of XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, the accused therein have preferred this petition.

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 6850 of 2018

¶29

Petitioner no.1 is the husband and respondent no.1 is his

¶30

wife. Petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of respondent no.1 and petitioner no.3 is the sister-in-law of respondent no.1.

¶31

Respondent no.1 gave a complaint alleging that she was married to petitioner no.1 on 04.03.2012. They resided at Bengaluru after marriage. Petitioner no.2 has been residing at Salem and petitioner no.3 at Erode. Petitioner no.1 did not give necessary love and affection to respondent no.1 and was always telling her that she is fat, not beautiful, not to eat much, do dieting and was not giving necessary money to run the house nor did he take care of the child. It is further alleged that he used to beat her and scold her and when respondent no.1 went to her parents house, he used to come there and harass her mentally and physically. It is also alleged that petitioner nos.2 and 3 also at times used to come to their matrimonial home and harass her. The said complaint culminated in CC No.21438/2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 6850 of 2018

¶34

The petitioners herein are charged for the offences under Sections 498A, 109 read with 34 of IPC.

¶35

The case of the petitioners is that they are not guilty of the offences alleged. The matrimonial dispute has resulted in respondent no.1 filing a false complaint against the petitioners herein and reading of the complaint does not reveal the offences alleged. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the proceedings in CC No.21438/2018 be quashed.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 is absent.

¶37

Learned HCGP for respondent No.2 submits that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the complaint reveal the offences alleged and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

It is seen from the complaint and the charge sheet that there are allegations made against petitioner no.1/husband that he has physically assaulted respondent no.1 and has mentally harassed her in the matrimonial home as well as at her parents' place. Section 498A of IPC speaks about husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, if

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 6850 of 2018

¶41

taken as true, it reveals that petitioner no.1 has committed the offence under Section 498A of IPC. However, in respect of Section 109 of IPC, the husband being the main person alleged of having committed the offence under Section 498A of IPC, him being charged with abetment of the offence punishable under Section 109 of IPC does not arise.

¶42

However, in respect of the allegations made against petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it is seen that they are general and omnibus in nature and there are no specific allegations made against them. The complaint and the charge sheet reveal that they never resided with petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1. The facts and circumstances of the case reveal that they have been complained against because they happened to be close relatives of petitioner no.1 In the absence of any specific role attributable to petitioner nos.2 and 3, it would be unjust if they are forced to undergo tribulations of a trial. A criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. In view of lack of any specific allegations against petitioner nos.2 and 3 under the given facts

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 6850 of 2018

¶45

and circumstances of the case, the petition succeeds insofar as

¶46

it relates to petitioner nos.2 and 3. Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The proceedings in CC No.21438/2018 pending on the file of XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to petitioner nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed. The proceedings in CC No.21438/2018 against petitioner no.1 insofar as it relates to commission of the offence under Section 109 of IPC is also hereby quashed. However, the charge sheet laid under Section 498A of IPC against petitioner no.1 stands.

¶49

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

hkh.

¶51

SD/JUDGE

Sri. Saravana Kumar v. Smt. Jayaprabha. N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Saravana Kumar v. Smt. Jayaprabha. N

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

K S Vijay Vs D Shanmukhappa

Sri K M Ravi Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Million Lights Vs Mr. Mahesh

M/S Million Lights Vs Mr. Mahesh

Sri Abdul Salam Vs the Superintendent of Customs