Allowed

Ms. Ambujakshi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023CRL.P/2882/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed by six accused persons seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.1777/2018. The court held that the Magistrate impermissibly recorded a sworn statement without first rejecting the police B-report and quashed proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 8 citing unexplained FIR delay and family dispute origins.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned proceedings on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, at Anekal, insofar as it relates to petitioners – accused No.3 to 8.

Ms. Ambujakshi Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 2882 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2882 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MS. AMBUJAKSHI W/O. LATE KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THYAVAKANAHALLI, NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, BIDARAGUPPE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562 107.

¶9

MR. VINAY KUMAR S/O. T.V. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, THYAVAKANAHALLI, NEAR FEDERAL BANK, BIDARAGUPPE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562 107.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O. VANAGURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, #1615, SARJAPUR, ITTANGUR ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562 107.

¶12

MR. PRAKASH BABU S/O. T. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SRI SAI KRUPA, HOODY, BASAVANAGAR ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048.

¶13

2 - CRL.P No. 2882 of 2019

¶14

MS. JALAJAKSHI D/O. OF T.V. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, #1615, SARJAPUR, ITTANGUR ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562 107.

¶15

MS. VEENA D/O. OF T.V. GOVIND REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SRI SAI KRUPA, HOODY, BASAVANAGAR ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI DIWAKARA K., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

VEERAPPA REDDY (SUBSTITUTED COMPLAINANT) S/O. LATE RAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.1010, 17TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 029.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.205/2006 IN C.C.NO.1777/2018 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.3 TO 8 FOR THE OFEFNCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 448, 506 AND 114 R/W 149 OF IPC,

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 2882 of 2019

¶25

PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The FIR was lodged by the mother of the 2nd respondent alleging that, on 13.11.2006, the accused No.1 and 2 along with others forcibly trespassed into her house, abused her in a filthy language and tried to assault her, and also threatened her that they would throw her out of the house, and if any body obstructs or interferes in their illegal and high handed acts, they would be killed. It was further alleged that, the said incident took place at the instigation of accused Nos.5 to 8.

¶29

The Police after investigation submitted the 'B' report with the learned Magistrate. The complainant during her life time filed protest petition to the 'B' report and her sworn statement was recorded. Thereafter, the complainant died and the present respondent No.2 who is the son of the deceased complainant filed an application to proceed with the case.

¶30

The Trial Court after perusing the protest petition and recording the sworn statement, registered the case, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 143, 448, 506(B) and 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC and issued summons against the accused. Taking exception of the same, accused Nos.3 to 8 are before this Court.

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 2882 of 2019

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that the learned Magistrate without passing an order rejecting the 'B' report at the first instance has recorded the sworn statement and taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences which is impermissible in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DR.RAVIKUMAR vs. MRS.K.M.C. VASANTHA & ANOTHER, reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.

¶35

He further submits that the alleged incident has taken place on 13.11.2006, and the FIR was lodged on 24.11.2006 without offering any plausible explanation for the delay, which clearly implies that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioners-accused. He further submits the allegation made in the complaint arises out of the family dispute which is given a criminal texture so as to harass the petitioners-accused.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the learned Magistrate after considering the material on record has rightly formed an opinion that there exists a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners-accused. At this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference. He further submits that there was sufficient cause shown for delay in lodging the FIR, and delay cannot be a ground to quash the

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 2882 of 2019

¶39

impugned proceedings when the allegation made clearly discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused.

¶40

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

The complainant during her life time had filed protest petition to the 'B' report submitted by the Police. The learned Magistrate was required to pass an order rejecting the 'B' report at the first instance, and thereafter recorded the sworn statement and registration the case in view of the guidelines issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DR.RAVIKUMAR supra.

¶42

In the instant case, the learned Magistrate without passing an order rejecting the 'B' report at the first instance has recorded the sworn statement and took cognizance of the offence which is impermissible. Even otherwise, the alleged incident took place on 13.11.2006, and the FIR was lodged on 24.11.2006 without offering any plausible explanation for the delay. The Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 has held as follows:

¶43

“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment

¶44

6 - CRL.P No. 2882 of 2019

¶45

and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. 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.”

¶46

The complainant has not given any plausible explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, and in the absence of any explanation, it is implied that the FIR was lodged as an after thought, to falsely implicate the petitionersaccused herein, and having regard to the relationship between the parties, it is implied that the allegation arises out of the family dispute, however, given a criminal texture.

¶47

In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused No.3 to 8 will be an abuse of process of law, since the probability of conviction of the petitioner-accused No.3 to 8 is remote and bleak. Hence, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49