Allowed

Smt Vijayalaxmi v. Miss Sandhya Kiran

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022WP/17624/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner following a domestic dispute. The court held that the FIR was lodged with ulterior motive and without probable cause to coerce the petitioner to vacate the matrimonial home, noting the absence of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's allegations in a matrimonial discord.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.53029/2016 pending before the Hon'ble X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court are quashed.

Smt Vijayalaxmi Vs Miss Sandhya Kiran — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.17624 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O SHRI RAJASHEKHAR YALAVIGI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: PVT SERVICE, R/O FLAT NO.105, SAI DEEP HEIGHTS, 2ND MAIN, PAI LAY PUT MAHADEVPUR, BENGALURU-560 048.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ASHOK R. KALYAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MISS SANDHYA KIRAN D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR YALAVIGI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O FLAT NO.105, SAI DEEP HEIGHTS, 2ND MAIN, PAI LAY PUT, MAHADEVPUR, BENGALURU-560 048.

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (MAHADEVPUR POLICE, BANGALORE), ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT PREMISES, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-2;

¶16

V/O DATED 6.6.2022 NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE CHARGE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-H IN C.C.NO.53029/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE X ACMM COURT, MAYO HALL BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under

¶21

Sections 323, 324, 506 of IPC alleging that the accused is her brother's wife and on 13.02.2015, after returning from the office, the accused picked up quarrel and abused her in filthy language and also assaulted her with a knife causing bleeding injury.

¶22

The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons to the petitioner-accused. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶23

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

¶25

accused submits that the dispute between the parties arise out of the marital discord, however, the FIR is lodged as an after thought so as to pressurize the petitioner-accused to vacate the matrimonial home which is evident from her statement recorded on 19.02.2015 and also the application filed by the husband of the accused before the matrimonial Court. He further submits that against the very same incident, the Police had submitted Non Cognizable report in NCR.No.249/2015 which clearly implies that FIR lodged as an after thought so as to falsely implicate the petitioner-accused.

¶26

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner-accused having assaulted the respondent No.2 with a knife and also abused her in a filthy language, committed the offence as alleged against her. Hence, the Police have rightly filed the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused and the same cannot be faulted with.

¶27

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

¶29

Initially, the respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR with the Police for the very same incident and the Police after summoning the parties filed the NCR. However, as an after thought the respondent No.2 lodged the FIR after the husband filed an application before the matrimonial Court to direct the petitioner-accused to vacate the matrimonial home on the very same incident which clearly implies that the dispute between the parties arises out of the marital discord however given a criminal texture so as to pressurize the petitioner-accused to vacate the matrimonial home. It is implied that the FIR is lodged with an ulterior motive and without any probable cause and with malice.

¶30

Hence, the impugned charge sheet filed against the petitioner-accused in the absence of any corroborative material, except on the allegations made by the respondent No.2 which arises out of the marital discord is without any substance. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶33

¶34

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.53029/2016

¶35

pending on the file of the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Smt Vijayalaxmi v. Miss Sandhya Kiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vijayalaxmi v. Miss Sandhya Kiran

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 Ramanjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharmappa N N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Kamlesh Hakumatrai Thakur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Maheshwari Dhongadi Vs Sri. Narayankumar Raibagi

Sri Rahul Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka