Allowed

Ravi v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023CRL.P/2324/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.P. No. 2324 of 2019, a four-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings under sections 323, 504, 506, and 341/34 IPC. The Court held that the four-day delay in lodging the FIR without plausible explanation, lack of wound certificate, and absence of specific allegations regarding breach of public peace rendered the proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.380/2019 pending before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala are quashed.

Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 2324 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2324 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAVI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH

¶8

SMT PAVITHRA S

¶9

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶10

W/O RAVI

¶11

ANJINAMURTHY

¶12

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

¶13

VENKATESH

¶14

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O VENKATARAMAN

¶15

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 RESIDING AT GORAGATTA, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561204

¶17

ALSO PETITIONER NO.2 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, WORKING AT GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, NARAGUND, GADAG-582 207.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - CRL.P No. 2324 of 2019

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DOBBESPET POLICE DOBBESPET BANGALORE RURAL DIST REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶23

SMT GAYATHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O MARIYAPPA R/O SHIVANANA NAGARA, SHIVAGANGE POST NELAMANGALA TLAUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561204

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.380/2019 REGISTERED BY DOBBESPET POLICE, NELAMANGALA, 1st RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.323, 341, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, NOW THE CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - CRL.P No. 2324 of 2019

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners have been charge sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 341 read with section 34 of IPC alleging that on, 05.12.2018, when C.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding to the Taluk office by walk, at that point of time, the accused Nos.1 to 4 wrongfully restrained C.Ws.1 and 2 from proceeding further, and the accused No.1 caught hold of the collar of C.W.2, and accused No.2 assaulted C.W.2 with his hands and, when C.W.1 came to rescue of C.W.2, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 pushed her down and caused pain. It was further alleged that accused Nos.3 and 4 abused C.Ws.1 and 2 in filthy language and also threatened that they would do away with their life, if they supported one Mr. Gangadhar. The cognizance taken for the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶32

The alleged incident has taken place on 05.12.2018.

¶33

The FIR was lodged on 09.12.2018 i.e, after lapse of four days from the date of incident. A perusal of the FIR indicates that no plausible explanation is offered for delay in lodging the FIR. The charge sheet material does not contain the wound certificate to substantiate the allegations that due to the assault made by the

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 2324 of 2019

¶36

accused, the charge sheet witness has sustained simple injuries, so as to constitute the offence under Section 323 of IPC. It is also undisputed that the sister of accused No.1 has filed a case against C.W.3 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.

¶37

The delay in lodging the FIR, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought and a delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained and in the absence of plausible explanation, it is implied that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused and dispute between the parties arises out of case registered against C.W.3.

¶38

The intentional insult must be of such a degree, so as to cause breach of public peace of any other offences which is an essential condition so as to constitute offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. In the instant case, there is no specific allegation, as to how and in what manner, the defacto complainant was

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 2324 of 2019

¶41

abused in filthy language and the abusive language used by the accused resulted in breach of public peace or commission of any other offence.

¶42

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view

¶43

that the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Petition is allowed.

¶46

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.380/2019

¶47

pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Ravi v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Pragbhaldas K v Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Selvi Ceceliya a Vs Smt. Poornima

Ms. Ambujakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Kumar a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajeshwaran Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkataiah R Vs State of Karnataka