Allowed

S Vishwanath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023CRL.P/2941/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC were filed to quash an FIR for offences including cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The Court granted interim stay on investigation for one accused and quashed the FIR against petitioners, holding allegations against one did not constitute an offence and continuing investigation was an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No. 57/2017 was quashed insofar as it related to petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3.

S Vishwanath Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 6239 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 2941 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6239 OF 2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2941 OF 2017

¶6

In Crl.P.No.6239/2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI INDRAZITH SHANTHARAJ SON OF SHANTHARAJU S R AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 201 VINYAS RESIDENCY, 15TH CROSS 17TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 5TH PHASE BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶10

SRI PARASHURAM HOSADURGA SON OF HANUMANTAPPA HOSADURGA AGED 45 YEARS FRF01, 4TH FLOOR SLV GOLDEN NEST 2ND MAIN ROAD PRASHANTH NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. KESHAVA KUMAR B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY R T NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

2 - CRL.P No. 6239 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 2941 of 2017

¶16

SMT MADHURA INDRAZITH W/O SRI INDRAZITH SHANTHARAJ RESIDING AT NO 177 SRI RANGA KRUPA, 6TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK, R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.B.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS HEREIN i.e., ACCUSED NO.1, 3 WHO ARE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 504, 506, 509, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC IN THE EVENT OF CR.NO.57/2017 ON THE FILE OF 56TH ADDL.CMM, BANGALORE.

¶20

In Crl.P.No. 2941/2017

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

S VISHWANATH S/O MR SHANKARA SHETTAPPA AGED 63 YEARS OCCUPATION:RETIRED SERVICE RESDIING AT NO.411 SHANKARA KRUPA 4TH B CROSS MARUTHI LAYOUT VASANTHPURA BENGALURU-560 061

¶23

…PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P.,ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R T NAGAR POLICE STATION J C NAGAR SUB DIVISIONB BENGALURU

¶27

3 - CRL.P No. 6239 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 2941 of 2017

¶28

REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKARVEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶29

MS MADHUVA INDIRAJIT W/O MR INDIRAJIT SHANTHRAJ MAJOR OCCUPATION :LPRIVATE SERVICE RESIDING AT NO.177 SRIRANGA KRUPA 6TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK R T NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.K.B.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶32

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.57/2017 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/R.T NAGAR P.S., J.C NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE FOR THE EOFFENCE U/S 498A, 504, 506, 509, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent No.2 alleging that,

¶36

she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1, and accused Nos.1 to 3 subjected her to cruelty and also harassed her, and at the instigation of the said accused, Lokayukta conducted raid

¶37

4 - CRL.P No. 6239 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 2941 of 2017

¶38

on the house of the father of respondent No.2, and also accused No.1 and unknown persons threatened respondent No.2 to withdraw the matrimonial case. It was further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 have physical relationship with each other and also the said accused used to misbehave inappropriately. The registration of F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 509, 420, 34 of IPC is impugned in these petitions.

¶39

This Court granted interim order staying the investigation of the crime against petitioner/accused No.2. The Police after investigation submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC alleging that accused No.1 used to subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty both physically and mentally, and accused No.1 along with unknown persons threatened respondent No.2 to withdraw matrimonial case.

¶40

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

5 - CRL.P No. 6239 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 2941 of 2017

¶42

The allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 were common, except the allegations that, accused No.1 along with unknown persons threatened respondent No.2 to withdraw the complaint. Admittedly, accused No.2 is not the relative of the husband, and in fact relative of respondent No.2, and allegations of cruelty against accused No.2 who is not the relative of the husband does not constitute an offence under Section 498A of IPC. Further there is no allegations against petitioner/accused No.1, that he along with unknown persons threatened the respondent No.2 to withdraw the matrimonial

¶43

case. Hence, in the absence of any material so as to constitute an offence under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 the registration of F.I.R. is impermissible.

¶44

Hence, continuation of the investigation against

¶45

respondent No.2 will be an abused of process of law.

¶46

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Criminal Petitions are allowed.

¶49

6 - CRL.P No. 6239 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 2941 of 2017

¶50

Impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.57/2017 registered by R.T.Nagar Police Station, insofar it relates to

¶51

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby quashed.

¶52

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matter.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

GPG

S Vishwanath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Vishwanath v. State of Karnataka

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 G P Mallikarjuna Vs Smt G H Sudha

Sri K v Ramesh Babu Vs S Malini

Sri G.R Jagannath Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur Vs the Chief Secretary

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal Vs Registrar

J P Nasir Vs State of Karnataka