Allowed

Smt. S. Rajeshwari v. the State by

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023CRL.P/2922/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings alleging offences under Sections 323, 354, and 504 IPC. The court held that the allegations were vague and arose from a civil dispute regarding construction, making criminal continuation an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.30372/2018 insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused No.1 to 4.

Smt. S. Rajeshwari Vs the State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 2922 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2922 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. S. RAJESHWARI W/O N LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

SRI N LAKSHMAN S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶11

SHILPA D/O N LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SL.NOS.1 TO 3 EARLIER R/AT NO.14, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 041. AT PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1261 32ND 'G' CROSS, 28TH MIAN ROAD, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶14

SRI T. KRISHNAMURTHY SATHISH S/O T. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.9, AMRUTHI NIVASA 11TH CROSS, THIMMAIAH GARDEN R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 2922 of 2019

¶18

(BY SRI. B.N. SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO P3)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE BY THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.

¶21

SMT. JAYANTHI W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.1262 32ND 'G' CROSS, 28TH MIAN ROAD, 4TH 'T' BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI CHETHAN B. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 IN ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY FOR HAVING TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF PCR NO.4798/2018 DATED 27.02.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.30372/2018 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354, 504 R/W 34 OF THE IPC AS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., was filed by the 2nd respondent alleging that, a complaint was filed against the petitioners accused with the BBMP for putting up construction in violation of sanctioned plan, and when request

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 2922 of 2019

¶30

was made to accused No.1 to 3 to take safety measures, at the time of construction, accused No.4 abused the complainant with filthy language and told his workers to put a steel rod on the complainant when she was in terrace.

¶31

It was further alleged that, complainant's husband had lodged a complaint on 2.10.2017, before the Tilaknagar Police station, however, the Police issued NCR and have not taken any action. The accused persons having came to know about the lodging of complaint by the husband of respondent No.2, came to the complainant's house, when she was alone, and abused her with vulgar language and further assaulted her and torn her clothes, and they threatened the complainant to withdraw the complaint.

¶32

The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent took cognizance of the offence under Section 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal code and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶34

submits that, except omnibus and general allegations, there is

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 2922 of 2019

¶37

no specific allegations as against each of the petitioners, as to how, and in what manner, they abused the respondent No.2 with filthy language, and also outraged the modesty of the complainant. He further submits that, a private complaint was lodged with an intention to circumvent the judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.2, and her husband from interfering with the construction put up by the petitioners-accused herein. Hence, he submits that, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the allegations made in the complaint clearly discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused, and the veracity of allegations can be considered after full fledged trial, and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference.

¶39

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶40

¶41

CRL.P No. 2922 of 2019

¶42

Perusal of the complaint indicates that, there is no specific allegation, except omnibus and general allegations of abusing the respondent No.2 in a filthy language and also outraging her modesty. The respondent No.2 has also not produced any wound certificate to substantiate her claim that she had sustained injuries due to the assault made by the petitioners-accused.

¶43

It is undisputed that the petitioners-accused herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.2468/2017, before the jurisdictional Court against respondent No.2 and also against her husband, and the said suit was decreed on 1.9.2017, restraining the respondent No.2 and her husband from interfering with the construction put up by the petitioners-herein, which clearly, implies that, the private complaint was lodged thereafter, only to circumvent the decree for permanent injunction with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the petitioners and with revengeful intent.

¶44

The dispute between the parties arises out of alleged illegal construction put up by the petitioners-accused over the subject property, however, given a criminal texture,

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 2922 of 2019

¶47

and in the absence of any corroborative material, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation is without any substance.

¶48

Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶49

10. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶52

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.30372/2018

¶53

on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru City, in so far it relates to petitioners-accused No.1

¶54

to 4 is hereby quashed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt. S. Rajeshwari v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S. Rajeshwari v. the State 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

Renu @ Renu Kumar S Vs the State by Mahadevapura Police Station

Mr. Vivek N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

T N Roopa Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Hanumegowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Srinivasan K Vs the State of Karnataka