Partly allowed

Shivanand N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023CRL.P/1565/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal petitions were filed to quash proceedings and allow further investigation. The court discharged accused persons for IPC cheating and intimidation charges but maintained proceedings regarding juvenile cruelty allegations, ordering the prosecution to conduct further investigation before proceeding with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Accused discharged from IPC charges; order rejecting further investigation application set aside; further investigation allowed for JJ Act charges.

Shivanand N Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1565 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8562 OF 2021 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10029 OF 2021

¶6

CRL.P.NO.1565/2021:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVANAND N., S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A 38, BHARATHI STREET SRINGERI, CHIKKAMAGALUR, PIN-577139

¶9

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

¶10

NO.12, 5^TH MAIN, DOMLUR, HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560008.

¶11

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. MURTHY DAYANAND NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SADASIVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, BANGALORE-01.

¶16

DR. EKTHA SINGH W/O RAJEEV GIRI, PSS, PINAKAL, NO.20 BOOMOREDDY COLONY, NO.21/1, THIPPASANDRA ROAD, HAL 3^RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560075

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶19

RAJEEV GIRI

¶20

S/O JAYDEV GIRI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, FLAT NO.C103, CASA, ANSAL APARTMENT, B.G. ROAD, NEAR GOPALAN MALL, J.P. NAGAR 3^RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560078

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶23

SRI. OMAR SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶24

SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET BEARING C.C.NO.25342/2018 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.165/2018 DATED 10.09.2018 PENDING BEFORE XXX A.C.M.M., COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 109, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC ALONGWITH SECTIONS 75 AND 87 OF JUVENILE (JUSTICE AND CARE) PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶26

IN CRL.P.NO.8562/2021:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

DR. EKTA SINGH D/O D.V. SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT: THE ICON, NO.8, 80 FEET ROAD, HAL 3^RD STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶30

R/AT PSS PINNACLE, NO.21/2, 1^ST FLOOR, BHOOMI REDDY COLONY, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU -560 075

¶31

…PETITIONER

¶32

(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.P. NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU-560 078 REP. ITS: S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶35

DR. RAJEEV GIRI S/O JAYADEV GIRI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.103, EASE ANSAL APARTMENT, B.G.ROAD, NEXT TO GOPALAN MALL, J.P NAGAR 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078

¶36

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶37

SRI. S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶38

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.25342/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 109, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 75 AND 87 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV A.C.M.M, BENGALURU CITY AGAINST THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶40

¶41

IN CRL.P. NO.10029/2021:

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

DR. RAJEEV GIRI S/O DR. JAYDEV GIRI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT D-006. CASA ANSAL APARTMENT, NEXT TO GOPALAN MALL, BANERGHATTA ROAD, J P NAGAR 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. (BY SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶44

…PETITIONER

¶45

AND:

¶46

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560078, REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶47

SRI. SHIVANAND N., S/O N.G. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENCE AT NO.38, BHARATHI STREET, SRINGERI, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.9, 86/2, SREE SHANTHA, 11^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, SRINIVASA LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, KUDLU, BENGALURU-560068.

¶48

SMT. EKTA SINGH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O D.V. SINGH, RESIDING AT 1S, NO.20, PSS PINNACLE, BHOOMI REDDY COLONY, NO.21/2, THIPPASANDRA ROAD, HAL 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560075.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶50

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶51

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2021 ON THE FILE OF 30^TH ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.25342/2018 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.6 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2021 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.177/2021 ON THE FILE OF L ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-51) VIDE DOCUMENT NO.10 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 173(8) OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.25342/2018 ON THE FILE OF 30^TH ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU VIDE DOCUMENT NO.4.

¶52

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

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Crl.P.No.1565/2021 is filed by the accused No.1 to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.25342/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, pending trial before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as ‘Trial Court’).

¶55

Crl.P.No.8562/2021 is filed by the accused No.2 to quash the entire proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.25342/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections

¶56

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶57

120B, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (henceforth referred to as ‘J.J. Act of 2015’) pending trial before the Trial Court.

¶58

Crl.P.No.10029/2021 is filed by the complainant in C.C.No.25342/2018 pending trial before the Trial Court to set aside the order dated 09.04.2021 passed therein as well as the order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.177/2021 on the file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and consequently, to allow an application filed by him for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

¶59

The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1565/2021 and

¶60

Crl.P.No.8562/2021 shall be referred as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, while the petitioner in Crl.P.No.10029/2021 shall be referred to as complainant.

¶61

The respondent No.1 in all these cases registered Crime No.165/2018 on the basis of the information furnished by the complainant and took up investigation for the offences

¶62

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶63

punishable under Sections 420, 497, 109, 506, 504, 418 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015. The summary of the information furnished by the complainant was that he was a qualified Pathologist at Malathi Manipal Hospital for over eight years. He claimed that he obtained a decree of dissolution of his first marriage with Smt. Sunitha. He claimed that the accused No.2, who was also married, had obtained a decree of dissolution of her marriage during 2009. The complainant claimed that he came to know the accused No.2 through jeevansathi.com and both of them agreed to marry and consequently, their marriage was solemnized on 23.10.2011. The complainant claimed that accused No.2 was working as an Administrator at Manipal Hospital. The complainant claimed that after marriage, he was residing at the address mentioned in the complaint along with accused No.2 and his parents. He claimed that the accused No.2 lead a blissful marital life for six months. However, she frequently quarreled with his parents and insisted that they should not live in the same house, which resulted in heartburn. He claimed that he lodged a complaint against the accused No.2 on 06.07.2012 before J.P. Nagar police station. However,

¶64

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶65

the accused No.2 did not respond to the calls made by the police. He claimed that he used to adjust with the accused No.2. He claimed that during August 2012, she threw his parents out of the house who were forced to reside separately. He alleged that after his parents left the house, the accused No.2 used to harass him for trivial reasons, but he hoped that things would get sorted and continued the marital life. He claimed that during 2014, the accused No.2 was pregnant and therefore, she requested him to get back his parents and accordingly, they came back. He claimed that a baby girl was born on 26.04.2015. Later, he and the accused No.2 purchased a three bedroom house after raising a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from S.B.I., R.T. Nagar Branch. He claimed that from January 2016, he was paying Rs.80,000/- per month towards discharge of the loan. He claimed that the accused No.2 started working as Administrator at Columbia Asia Corporate Office and was drawing Rs.60,000/- per month. During the year 2016, the accused No.2 insisted to register the marriage and accordingly, it was registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Jayanagar. He claimed that accused No.2 was working half a day on every Saturday while Sunday was a holiday.

¶66

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶67

However, from April 2017, she claimed that she had to work for the entire day on Saturday and used to come home late. She refused any access to the complainant claiming that she was tired and unwell. During May, 2017 and onwards, she used to leave home on every Saturday and used to come late in the night and did not show any love and affection towards the complainant. The complainant, who grew suspicious, verified at her work place and found that Saturday was a holiday. He alleged that the accused No.1 was employed as an Auditor at Columbia Asia Corporate Hospital and was introduced to him by accused No.2. He alleged that the accused No.2 used to be in the company of the accused No.1. He alleged that he started tracking the accused No.2 every Saturday and found that she used to spend time with the accused No.1 at various hotels. He therefore, alleged that the accused No.2 had gotten into an illicit relationship with the accused No.1 and thereby, cheated him and ignored her responsibilities as a parent. When she was questioned, she allegedly fought with the complainant and also abused his parents and physically assaulted the child. He claimed that on 02.04.2018, the accused No.2 threatened the complainant and his parents of dire consequences and claimed

¶68

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶69

that she would continue to live with the accused No.1. She thereafter forcibly took away the child and went to J.P. Nagar police station and the complainant followed her. By that time, the accused No.1 was already at the police station and they lodged a complaint against the complainant. He claimed that his parents also reached the police station and that he lodged a complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, the accused No.2 started residing at a different place along with the child, where the accused No.1 used to frequent regularly. He claimed that some intimate photographs of the accused were uploaded on Google, which showed that the child was neglected. He therefore, alleged that the accused No.2 was cheated him while the accused No.1 even after knowing that the accused No.2 was married, had gotten into an adulterous relationship with her. Based on this the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.165/2018 for the aforementioned offence.

¶70

After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet

¶71

was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 497, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015.

¶72

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶73

The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 497, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 75 and 87 of J.J. Act of 2015 and issued process.

¶74

In the meanwhile, the accused No.1 filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge. The Trial Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India [AIR 2018 SCC Online SC 1676] held that an offence under Section 497 of IPC no longer existed on the statute and therefore, cognizance for the said offence could not be taken and consequently, allowed the application in part and discharged the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 497 of IPC. The application filed by the accused No.2 was rejected.

¶75

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed Crl.P.No.1565/2021 and Crl.P.No.8562/2021 respectively.

¶76

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶77

The complainant claimed that on 26.04.2020 he

¶78

was informed by one of his colleagues, Mr. Vijayamurthy M.R., who lived near the house of accused No.2 that when he was on his morning walk along with his wife, he saw the accused No.1 in the house of accused No.2 and that his car was parked outside the house. He also informed that on 06.05.2020 when he and his wife were returning home, he saw a child being hit by a man in the street and the child was crying. When they closely noticed, the child was none other than the daughter of the complainant, who was with accused No.2 and the man bashing up the child was the accused No.1. The said Mr. Vijayamurthy M.R. informed the complainant that the child was running away from the accused No.1 but the accused No.2 held her and handed her over to accused No.1 and told her, “Go to your father, he won’t do anything.” The complainant therefore went to Jeevanbheemanagar police station along with Mr. Vijayamurthy M.R. and lodged a complaint. However, the complaint was not entertained. He therefore, approached the Public Prosecutor in C.C.No.25342/2018 and brought to his notice the above incident. Consequent thereto, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

¶79

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶80

to re-investigate the case. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 09.04.2021. The complainant thereafter filed Crl.R.P.No.177/2021 which too, was dismissed in terms of the order dated 25.10.2021. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed Crl.P.No.10029/2021.

¶81

The learned Senior counsel for the accused No.1 and the learned counsel for accused No.2 submitted that in view of the order discharging the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 497 of IPC, the other offences alleged against the accused No.1 are not made out. They submitted that offences under Sections 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 504, 506 and 109 of IPC are not made out, as there are no allegations of cheating or of intimidating complainant. They further contended that except alleging in the complaint that the accused No.2 had taken the child and was residing in a two bedroom house at Tippasandra, there was no allegation about commission of any offence under Sections 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015. They therefore, submitted that the impugned prosecution of the accused is nothing but an attempt to harass them, as several other proceedings were pending before the IV

¶82

14 -

¶83

NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶84

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in G & WC No.128/2018, where the accused No.2 and the complainant were fighting a bitter battle over the custody of the child. They therefore, contend that when offences under Sections 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 504, 506 and 109 of IPC are not made out, the Trial Court blindly took cognizance and issued process. They further contend that even as per the case of the complainant, he sought for further investigation for the offence punishable under Sections 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015, which was rejected by the Trial Court and therefore, there is no material to prosecute the accused. Consequently, they contend that the Trial Court committed an error in not discharging the accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶85

Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused filed W.P.No.40629/2018 and W.P.No.39502/2018 for quashing the FIR registered in Crime No.165/2018, which they withdrew it on 01.08.2019. He submitted that the conduct of the accused No.2 was noticed by the Family Court in G & WC No.128/2018, which held that “the accused No.2 appeared to have maintained two relationships, one with the accused No.1 and the other with

¶86

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶87

the complainant.” He, submitted that the accused No.2, who had taken the child with her, was residing in an apartment along with the accused No.1. He referred to various documents that were marked as Exhibits in G & WC No.128/2018, which gave a peek into the adulterous life lead by the accused No.2 with the accused No.1. He submitted that PW.3 – Vijayamurthy M.R. in G & WC No.128/2018 gave a vivid description of the way in which, the child was handled by the accused Nos.1 and 2. He contended that the Family Court after considering the elaborate material placed on record, directed the accused No.2 to handover the custody of the child to the complainant. He contends that the accused have treated the child badly by exposing it to their immoral relationship and the accused No.2 has compelled the child to accept the accused No.1 as her father. He alleged that the child was abused, which was witnessed by persons known to the complainant, who were examined in G & WC No.128/2018 as PWs.2 and 3. He therefore contended that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application for further investigation for the offence punishable under Sections 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015. He therefore, prayed that the petitions filed by the accused be

¶88

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶89

rejected and the petition filed by the complainant for further investigation be allowed.

¶90

The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 contended that there are several documents, which indicate the commission of offences punishable by the accused and an elaborate charge-sheet is filed. She submits that the Trial Court has already framed the charges against the accused and this Court may therefore, not quash the proceedings.

¶91

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the accused No.1 and accused No.2 and the learned Senior counsel for the complainant as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶92

The charge-sheet filed against the accused was for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 497, 109, 504, 506, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015. The Trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. However, a perusal of

¶93

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶94

the information furnished by the complainant before the respondent No.1, indicates the instances of alleged adulterous life lead by the accused No.2 with the accused N0o.1. The Trial Court has discharged the accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 497 of IPC and has proceeded to frame charge against the accused for the other offences. Having regard to the nature of allegations made by the complainant, it is difficult to accept that there was any justification to prosecute the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 109 of IPC. A reading of the entire charge-sheet and the materials placed along with it, does not show the involvement of any property or its entrustment, to constitute an offence of cheating. In so far as the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC is concerned, though the complainant alleged that an attempt was made on his life by some stranger, who pointed a revolver at him, if he did not handover the custody of the child, the investigating agency has not gathered any information about the stranger. Apparently, there are no allegations, which constitute offences under Sections 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 504, 506, 109 of IPC and therefore, the

¶95

18 -

¶96

NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶97

prosecution of the accused for the aforesaid offences was unwarranted. The Trial Court must have discharged the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶98

However, in so far as the offence punishable under Section 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015 is concerned, there are enough materials collected by the prosecution, which indicate that the child was removed from the custody of the father and the accused were residing in a separate accommodation along with the child, where the child was forced to accept the accused No.1 as her father. There are also allegations that the child was neglected, at times abandoned, abused and exposed to the illicit relationship of the accused No.2 with the accused No.1. It is alleged that the accused No.1 had ill-treated and abused the child during his stay with the child and the accused No.2, which was witnessed by an acquaintance of complainant namely, Vijayamurthy M.R. and his wife.

¶99

For the sake of immediate reference, Section 75 of the J.J. Act of 2015 is extracted below:-

¶100

NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶101

19 -

¶102

“ 75. Punishment for cruelty to child.-

¶103

Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:

¶104

Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not willful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:

¶105

Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organization, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extent upto five years, and fine which may extend upto five lakhs rupees:

¶106

Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit

¶107

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶108

to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended upto ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees.”

¶109

The question whether the child was abused or abandoned or neglected, is essentially a question of fact and the nature of such abuse, abandonment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, the accused No.2 had a tumultuous marital relationship with the complainant and the fact that the accused No.2 took away the child from the lawful custody of the complainant and continued to live along with the accused No.1, gives an impression that the child, which was throughout in the custody of the accused Nos.1 and 2 could possibly be exposed to some amount of cruelty and the accused No.1 having abetted an offence under Section 75 of the J.J. Act of 2015 is also liable to be prosecuted for the said offences. The Family Court had noticed the conduct of the accused No.2 and therefore passed an order handing over the custody of the child to the complainant/father. This also gives an impression that the accused No.2 was not suitable to take care of the child. The Trial Court must have therefore

¶110

21 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶111

favourably considered the application filed by the complainant for further investigation having regard to the subsequent account of the two eye-witnesses, who had allegedly seen the child being abused by the accused, more particularly when there was no impediment for taking up further investigation for the offence punishable under Sections 75 and 87 of the J.J. Act of 2015.

¶112

In view of the above, Crl.P.No.1565/2021 and Crl.P.No.8562/2021 are allowed in part. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC in C.C.25342/2018 pending trial before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. However, the prosecution of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 shall continue, but subject to the further investigation that may be taken up by the investigating officer.

¶113

Crl.P.No.10029/2021 is allowed . The order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan

¶114

22 - NC: 2023:KHC:43995 CRL.P No. 1565 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 8562 of 2021 CRL.P No. 10029 of 2021

¶115

Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.25342/2018, rejecting the application filed by the investigating officer under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is set aside. The application filed by the investigating officer under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation is allowed. The investigating officer shall conduct further investigation and submit a further report to the Trial Court in accordance with law. The Trial Court shall proceed with the Trial in accordance with law.

¶116

Sd/JUDGE

¶117

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Shivanand N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanand N 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Krishnamurthy Subramanya Vs Smt Yogeetha B S

G C Shanthaveerappa Vs State of Karnataka

Lt Col.Piyush Kumar Sanwal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sr. Anto Virgin Mary Vs Sri G P Venkatachalapathi

Smt Suguna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.William Anoop Nicodemus Vs Ms.Sanghamitra Das