Allowed

K Srinivasan v. K Manjula Munibachappa

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2022WP/57995/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner challenged the charge sheet in a criminal case alleging criminal trespass, assault and cruelty. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner as he was verified to be on an official trip in Chennai on the date of the alleged incident in Bengaluru, making t

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.22157/2009 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 354, 504, 506 and 34 IPC are quashed.

K Srinivasan Vs K Manjula Munibachappa — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.57995 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

K.SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O THIMMARAYAPPA R/AT NO.206/2A ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET NAAGAVARA PALYA C.V.RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 093

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

K.MANJULA MUNIBACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O KALAPPA R/AT NEXT TO DOOR NO.A-6 KASHI VISHWANATHA LAYOUT K.D.ROAD, NEAR PRARTHANA SCHOOL K.R.PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASUR

¶14

¶15

BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE BENGALURU - 560 023

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R.2; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.02.2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE KARNATAKA STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The first respondent lodged the First Information Report alleging that on 04.02.2008 at 6.30 a.m., when she was walking alone at Nagavarapalya Main Road, the petitioner and other two other accused persons way laid her, bared her, impeded her and caught hold of her hand, dragged and pulled her and abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences if she did not withdraw

¶22

¶23

O.S.No.1644/2007 and the accused persons would trouble her and her children would be kidnapped. It was further alleged that they have got political power and the petitioner herein showed the Revolver to the informant.

¶24

The jurisdictional police registered FIR

¶25

against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The jurisdictional police after investigation submitted charge sheet before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved, this petition is filed.

¶26

Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was on official trip to Chennai from 03.02.2008 to

¶27

¶28

06.02.2008 which is evident from the documents annexed to this petition. Hence, the FIR lodged by the first respondent is with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner for the alleged offences and same is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the informant having not obtained an order of restraint against the petitioner and others in O.S.No.1644/2007, as a counter blast, has lodged FIR against the petitioner. The police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and two other accused persons for the offences alleged. It is relevant to state here that the police during the course of investigation has not recorded the statement of the petitioner.

¶29

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.2 - State would justify filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner having regard to the fact that

¶30

¶31

the allegations made in the FIR discloses the commission of offence as alleged against the petitioner.

¶32

I have examined the submissions made by

¶33

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

The alleged incident has taken place on 04.02.2008 at about 6.30 a.m. The police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and two other accused persons for the offences alleged. It is relevant to state here that the police during the course of investigation has not recorded the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the documents to substantiate his claim that he was on an official trip to Chennai from 03.02.2008 to 06.02.2008. The respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate that he was

¶35

¶36

not present in Bengaluru as on the date of the alleged incident. Hence, it is implied that the petitioner was on an official trip to Chennai from 03.02.2008 to 06.02.2008 and he was not present in Bengaluru as on the date of the alleged incident.

¶37

The respondent No.1 has also not disputed

¶38

that she was unsuccessful in getting an order of restraint against the petitioner in O.S No.1644/2007. Hence, it is implied that respondent No.1 has lodged FIR against the petitioner as a counter blast so as to falsely implicate the petitioner for the offences alleged.

¶39

In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned charge sheet filed against the petitioner requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶40

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶43

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.22157/2009 pending on the file of the X ACMM Court, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

NBM

K Srinivasan v. K Manjula Munibachappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Srinivasan v. K Manjula Munibachappa

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.v.Jayappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt Muthulakshmi Pitchammal Vs the Commissioner

M/S Neelanjana Enterprises Vs the Principal Secretary to the

Smt Leela Vs State by

Jayalakshmamma Vs Rathnamma

Thammaiah. K Vs State by Sheshadripuram Police