Allowed

Murthy K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023CRL.P/1135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition praying for quashing of proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 6. The court held that without specific allegations or material substantiating offences like cheating and rape, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 6 in C.C. No. 35/2023 were quashed.

Murthy K Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32270 CRL.P No. 1135 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1135 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MURTHY K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O KADIRAPPA R/O S DEVAGANAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562104.

¶9

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE BEARING NO.693, PID NO.96-286-50 SITUATED AT 2^ND MAIN 1^ST CROSS H.A.FARM POST HEBBALA BENGALURU-560 024.

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

POTTAPPA K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O KADIRAPPA R/AT NO.173, S.DEVAGANAHALLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, SADALI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 104.

¶12

RAJANI P V

¶13

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O VENKATANARASAPPA R/O DODDABANDARAGATTA GANJIGUNTE SHIDLAGHATTA CHIKKABALLAPURA-563 125.

¶14

GANGALAKSHMAMMA D K AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O KADIRAPPA R/O S DEVAGANAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 104.

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32270 CRL.P No. 1135 of 2023

¶16

NARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA D/O DEVAPPA R/O S DEVAGANAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 104.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMGIBI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAZARBAD POLICE STATION MYSURU CITY REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

MANASA M AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS D/O MYLARI NO.90 ‘C’ BLOCK, 6^TH MAIN 7 ROAD CROSS, J P NAGAR MYSURU-570 031.

¶22

ALSO AT NO.1104, 4^TH CROSS GANDHINAGARA HOLENARASIPURA RURAL HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN-573 211.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.M.M WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. KARTHIK SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.C. NARESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.35/2023 (CR.NO.46/2022) REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376(2)(n), 506, 34, 504, 420, 417 OF IPC NOW THE CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE III JMFC COURT, MALALAVADI, MYSURU CITY.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:32270 CRL.P No. 1135 of 2023

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 6 are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 34, 504, 420, 417 of IPC.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1 induced the defacto complainant to have forcible sexual intercourse by promising that, their marriage would be solemnized at the earliest, and thereafter, the defacto complainant became pregnant, and the accused No.1 started to avoid her. The accused herein abused the defacto complainant, and also threatened her to terminate the pregnancy. The accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 had promised to solemnize the marriage of defacto complainant.

¶32

Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that, except the omnibus and general allegation that these accused abused and threatened the defacto complainant, there is no specific allegation, as to how, and in what manner, and what date, the accused herein abused her in filthy language. The allegation of forcible sexual intercourse is against the accused No.1. Therefore, in the absence of any material, the prosecution of these accused for the aforesaid offences

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:32270 CRL.P No. 1135 of 2023

¶35

only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation is impermissible.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that accused No.1 had induced the defacto complainant to abort the child and he further submits that accused Nos.2 to 6 had given an oral undertaking that they would protect of the defacto complainant and the child in the womb.

¶37

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

The allegation of inducing the defacto complainant to have sexual intercourse by promising to marry her is against accused No.1, and there is no specific allegation against accused Nos.2 to 6. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation or material, the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 6 cannot be prosecuted for the offences of cheating and rape.

¶39

The contention of the de-facto complainant is that the petitioners herein had promised to take care of her and the child in the womb. It is an undisputed fact the marriage of the defacto complainant with accused No.1 was solemnized on 18.06.2022 i.e., after FIR was registered against the petitioners herein. There is no

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:32270 CRL.P No. 1135 of 2023

¶41

material to substantiate the said allegations except the oral allegations made by learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of the defacto complainant.

¶42

Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of any material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners herein would be an abuse of process of law.

¶43

9. Accordingly, petition is allowed .

¶44

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.35/2023 on the file of the III JMFC Court, Malalavadi, Mysuru, insofar as it relates to petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 6 is hereby quashed.

¶45

The Trial Court to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law without being influence by any observations made in this order, and the observation if made any is only for the purpose of the present petition

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Murthy K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murthy K v. the State of Karnataka

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

Lenkappa Vs the State by Sub Inspector of Police

R Maruthesh @ Maruthi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Supreeth T Vs the State by the Station House Officer

Sri. Ramesha K P Vs State of Karnataka

Shivakumar Vs State of Karanataka

Mr. Mahaveer Bhandari Vs State of Karnataka