Partly allowed

Sri T.P. Vasanth v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2023CRL.P/378/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka partially allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court quashed proceedings for Section 498A IPC due to lack of dowry harassment allegations but sustained the charges forSections 323 and 504 IPC based on the complaint details regarding assault and fear.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet in C.C.No.57631 of 2019 was quashed insofar as it concerns the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, while charges under Sections 323 and 504 IPC stood sustained.

Sri T.P. Vasanth Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 378 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. T.P.VASANTH, S/O LATE COL. T.A.PARTHASARATHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.281, 6^TH CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALSURU POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

SMT. INDIRA VASANTH W/O VASANTH T. P., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS NO.281, 6^TH CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶16

PRESENTLY AT: C/O MR. MADHU PILLAI VILLA NO.156, NAMBIAR BELLEZIA NARAYANA GHATTA VILLAGE CHANDAPURA DOMMASANDRA ROAD NEAR MUTTANALLUR CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 099.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. SATYANARAYANA S.CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.57631/2019 (CR.NO.108/2019) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HALASUR P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504 AND 323 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE X A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.57631 of 2019 which arose out of Crime No.108 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 323 of the IPC.

¶23

Heard Sri S Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶26

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Satyanarayana S Chalke, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶27

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioner is the accused. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent get married in the year 2011 when they were at ages 55 and 50. Alleging that the petitioner has meted out certain torture against the complainant, a complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner on 09.04.2019 and the complaint becomes a crime in, Crime No.108 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 323 of the IPC. The police after investigation file a charge sheet. The filing of the charge sheet, is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶28

Learned counsel Sri S Mahesh appearing for the petitioner would contend that the complaint or the charge sheet nowhere narrates any ingredient of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 or 323 of the IPC and seeks quashment of the entire proceedings, as according to the learned counsel

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶31

what the complainant has alleged is only a grievance and cannot form an allegation against her husband.

¶32

respondent/complainant would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has meted out torture that would become an offence punishable under Section 323 or 504 of the IPC. Insofar as it concerns Section 498A of the IPC, he would submit that since the charge sheet is filed by the police, the trial should be permitted to be continued. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial.

¶33

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶34

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶35

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue

¶36

lies in a narrow compass, as the petitioner and the respondent have been a couple since 2011 having married at the age of 55 and 50 years. After about 8 years of living together, the issue crops up on a particular day when the petitioner is said to have

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶39

assaulted the complainant, which results in a complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

¶40

“I have been married to T.P.Vasanth for more than 8 years we got married in 2011.

¶41

In the last three years since 2016 my husband T.P.Vasanth has been behaving very unpredictably losing his temper threatening me using foul language for very pretty matter he has even abused and shouted at his aged parents. Just three months ago, my husband even hit a metal ealker on my 97 years old father in law’s leg.

¶42

On Wednesday 27^th March, my husband got angry that no one had kept a bottle of water next to the bed when we were going to sleep. He started abusing using foul language not wanting provoke him I said nothing and just lay down to sleep my husband also lay down. Then he put his hand on me I just said please just go to sleep. Suddenly my husband pulled me up roughly and grabbed me around the neck from behind, he started to choke me shouting ‘now what will you do ! where will you run’.

¶43

I kept struggling to free myself suddenly he threw me off the bed and I flow across landing hard on the floor and skidding against the bathroom door. He jumped off the bed still shouting abuses and again pulled me up and threw me down then he tried to open the cupboard where he keeps his gun but then remembered he had surrendered it because of the elections.

¶44

He turned back to grab me and I hit out and ran out of the room shouting for help calling my cook to come.

¶45

My husband ran after me and caught up with me in living room and flung me onto the wooden centre table he caught my hair and that was when my cook came running into the room and screamed “Bhaiya kya kar rahe ho!”.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶48

My father in law’s nurse sachin, also came running up hearing all the screaming. My husband started shouting at them I ran to the bedroom and grabbed my phone and rang up my brother and cried come immediately come immediately vasanth is beating me.

¶49

My brother alerted my son who lives very close to my house my son rushed over and immediately took me to his house. I have enclosed photographs of my hematomas on my arms, cuts and bruises on my legs and face from assault.

¶50

I am scared to live in the same house now and hence will be staying with my brother in chandapura.

¶51

Requesting you to kindly take action against my husband.

¶52

Indira Vasanth.”

¶53

(Emphasis added)

¶54

The complainant narrates that on 27-03-2019 the

¶55

husband had indulged in assault, due to which the complainant appears to have sustained certain injuries. After the complaint,

¶56

the police investigate into the matter and file a charge sheet.

¶57

The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.7

¶58

reads as follows:

¶59

“zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ PÁ®A-4 gÀ°è£À DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23-12-2011 gÀªÀgÀÄ »AzÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ, EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ, G¥À£ÉÆAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ «¼Á¸ÀªÁzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À zÉÆªÀÄä®ÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÃOmï, 6£É PÁæ¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.281 zÀgÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, C°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ DUÁUÉÎ ¸ÀtÚ¥ÀÄlÖ «ZÁgÀUÀ½UÉ dUÀ¼ÀªÁr ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 27-03-2019 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 10:30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ®UÀ®Ä vÀ£Àß PÉÆoÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¨Éqï ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è AiÀiÁgÀÆ PÀÄrAiÀÄÄªÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ EqÀ°®è JA§ PÁgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼ÀªÁr, ¸ÁQë-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ vÀ¯É PÀÆzÀ®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr,

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶62

PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ vÀ½îzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ PÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶63

On a perusal of the complaint and summary of the charge sheet what would unmistakably emerge is, absence of any ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the

¶64

IPC. Section 498A of the IPC reads as follows:

¶65

“498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty;- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶66

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—

¶67

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶68

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

¶69

Cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC should

¶70

be for the purpose of demand of dowry. The entire complaint or the charge sheet so filed by the police would not indicate any offence by the petitioner on that score. Therefore, the offence

¶71

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶73

under Section 498A of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner. The offence, therefore, cannot be permitted to be continued against the petitioner.

¶74

Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 323 of the IPC are concerned, the complaint clearly makes out ingredients of those offences, so does the charge sheet (supra) . Therefore, quashment of proceedings insofar as it concerns offence under Sections 504 and 323 of the IPC is not warranted. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial for those offences. For the aforesaid offences, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

¶77

(ii) The charge sheet in C.C.No.57631 of 2019 insofar as it concerns offence punishable under Sections 498A stands quashed.

¶78

¶79

NC: 2023:KHC:21328 CRL.P No. 378 of 2022

¶80

(iii) The charge laid for the offence punishable under

¶81

Sections 323 and 504 stands sustained.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

BKP

¶84

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Sri T.P. Vasanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T.P. Vasanth v. the 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 Venkateshalu Naidu Vs State by Madiwala Police Station

Sri. a. M. Hanumanthe Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Pranay Nataraj Vs the State through the

Mr. Arun Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmaiah C U Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Prathap S Wadhwa Vs M/S Indesine Space Solutions LLP