Allowed

Sri Anjinappa v. State by Mahalakshmi Layout

Karnataka HC26 Oct 2023CRL.P/2726/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The court held the prosecution was an abuse of process involving repeated allegations from a quashed case and the trial court errantly took cognizance without applying mind.

What did the court decide?

The impugned prosecution in CC.No.8960/2018 for offences u/s 341, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC is quashed.

Sri Anjinappa Vs State by Mahalakshmi Layout — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38023 CRL.P No. 2726 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2726 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.101, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL TOWN, SHIVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 086, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

SMT B.R. VARALAKSHMI, W/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O NO.64, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, PIPELINE, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 086.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VISHNU MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:38023 CRL.P No. 2726 of 2021

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIR, COMPLAINT DATED 18.11.2016 IN CR.NO.308/2016 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8960/2018 PENDING BEFORE 7TH A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU AGAINST THIS PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE A,B AND C.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him in CC.No.8960/2018 pending trial before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

An investigation involving the petitioner was initiated by respondent No. 2, who lodged a handwritten complaint on 18.11.2016 with respondent No.1, stating therein, that she was the wife of the petitioner herein, who was employed in the High Court of Karnataka. She alleged that on 28.10.2015 when she visited the High Court to see the

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:38023 CRL.P No. 2726 of 2021

¶25

petitioner, he and his friends confronted and abused her and also assaulted her, in respect of which she lodged a case in Crime No.873/2015. Later, on 19.11.2015, accused No.2 had kidnapped her son and had threatened him of his life if respondent No.2 did not withdraw the case in Crime No.873/2015 and he was released on 21.11.2015. She claimed that a case in Crime No.333/2015 was registered against accused No.2 before Malleshwaram Police Station, Bangalore. She alleged that even after this, accused No.2 continued to call her over the phone and used to abuse her, forcing her to withdraw the cases filed by her. She alleged that she recorded the telephone conversations with accused No.2. She therefore alleged that the petitioner and accused No.2 would Henceforth be responsible in the event of any injury or harm to their lives and that suitable action may be initiated against accused No.2 and the petitioner.

¶26

Based on this, an NCR.No.502/2016 was registered. Thereafter, a request was made by the jurisdictional police for permission to investigate the offence. The Jurisdictional Magistrate affixed a rubber stamp permitting the investigation of the offence by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Consequent to

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:38023 CRL.P No. 2726 of 2021

¶29

this, investigation was undertaken, and a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶30

The Trial Court in terms of cyclostyled order, held that "there is a prima facie material to proceed against the accused". Hence, it took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and registered CC.No.8960/2018 and issued process to the petitioner.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the prosecution launched against him, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

It is contended that a 'B' report was filed in Crime No.873/2015 which is not challenged. Similarly, the proceedings initiated in Crime No.333/2015 is quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.8277/2016. He therefore contends that there is no basis for respondent No.2 to pursue the instant complaint. He further submits that the Trial Court had mechanically permitted an investigation without applying its mind. He further contended that the Trial Court did not apply its mind at the

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38023 CRL.P No. 2726 of 2021

¶34

time of taking cognizance of the offences and the order taking cognizance was a cyclostyled order.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand, contends that respondent No.1 after investigating the offences and recording the statements of the witnesses, has filed a charge sheet, and the Trial Court has taken cognizance and therefore, this Court could not exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings as the contentions urged by the petitioner is in the nature of a defence available at the trial of the case.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader also contended that the statement of witnesses recorded, supported the case of the prosecution and therefore this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

¶37

The basis of the case in CC.No.8960/2018 is that a prior case was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 in Crime No.873/2015 and a case in Crime No.333/2015. It is not in dispute that a 'B' report was filed in Crime No.873/2015 while the proceedings in Crime No.333/2015 was quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.8277/2016. Respondent No.2 did not

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:38023 CRL.P No. 2726 of 2021

¶40

challenge the 'B' report filed in Crime No.873/2015 but has chosen to file another complaint against the petitioner, virtually accusing the petitioner of the very same allegations made in Crime. No.873/2015. Therefore, the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 is a clear abuse of the process of law and this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise jurisdiction to set at naught the prosecution lodged against the petitioner.

¶41

In addition to the above, the Trial Court has committed a gross error in affixing a rubber stamp permitting the Investigating Officer to conduct an investigation without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether a cognizable offence is made out or not. Further, the Trial Court did not apply its mind by taking cognizance of the offence as was no material was placed before the Trial Court about acceptance of the 'B' report as well as the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.8277/2016.

¶42

In that view of the matter, the prosecution lodged by the petitioner deserves to be quashed and the petition is allowed . The impugned prosecution against the petitioner in

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:38023 CRL.P No. 2726 of 2021

¶45

CC.No.8960/2018 pending trial before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is

hereby quashed.

Sd/JUDGE

CT: BHK

Sri Anjinappa v. State by Mahalakshmi Layout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anjinappa v. State by Mahalakshmi Layout

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. Muniraju Gowda. P. M. Vs the Secretary Home Affairs

Dr R Radhakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dhananjaya Vs Sri K Pradeep Kumar

Mr. Shukoor Vs the State by

Shivashankar Vs State of Karnataka

S Sivaswamy Vs Mrs Manoshi Chatterjee