Allowed

Manjappa v. State by Women'S Police

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023CRL.P/5014/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings against petitioners accused under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC. The court held the prosecution unwarranted and a waste of time given the underlying civil property dispute.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; Impugned prosecution in C.C.No.43/2016 for offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC is quashed.

Manjappa Vs State by Women'S Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:47003 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5014 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJAPPA

¶8

S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶9

S.V. NAGARAJA

¶10

S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

RAJAPPA S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶13

JAYAPPA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶14

ANNAPPA S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE MAJOR,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:47003 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2017

¶16

RESIDENT OF GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶17

VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI.GOURAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE BY WOMEN'S POLICE DAVANAGERE CENTRAL CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, R/P BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶22

SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. MARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶25

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT WOMEN'S POLICE DAVANAGERE CIRCLE IN CRIME NO.104/2014 IN C.C.NO.43/2016 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 354, 506, 149 OF IPC WHICH IS

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:47003 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2017

¶28

PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE III J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C.No.43/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) pending trial before the III Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davanagere.

¶32

The respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.104/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, on the basis of information furnished by the respondent No.2 on 29.11.2014, that she and her son were assaulted by the petitioners at a marriage that was held on 27.11.2014. She claimed that the petitioners had accosted and abused her for getting her name entered in respect of Sy.No.18 of Chikkakogaluru village and that she was assaulted and her modesty outraged. She alleged that her son, who intervened was also assaulted and that she was thereafter shifted to the hospital for treatment. The respondent No.1 took

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:47003 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2017

¶35

up the investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and registered C.C.No.43/2016 for the aforesaid offences and issued process. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners too had informed the respondent No.1 about the offences committed by the respondent No.2 and a case in Cr.No.261/2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. He contended that the Trial Court took cognizance and registered C.C.No.1283/2015. He contends that the Trial Court had acquitted the respondent No.2 and other accused in terms of the judgment dated 24.02.2022. He further submits that the respondent No.2 has filed a suit in O.S.No.250/2015 for declaration that she is the owner of the suit properties and the decree passed in O.S.No.290/2006 did not bind her right, title and interest in suit items No.1 and 2

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:47003 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2017

¶38

and she also sought for perpetual injunction and he contends that the said suit is pending consideration. He further contends that the respondent No.2 has given a criminal color to a civil dispute by lodging the instant complaint and therefore, prays that the proceedings be quashed, as it is a clear misuse of the process of law.

¶39

The respondent No.2 though served with the notice of this petition, has not appeared.

¶40

The learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the respondent No.2 had suffered injuries and was admitted in the hospital. The wound certificate disclosed that the respondent No.2 had suffered swelling over forehead, tenderness over the left zygomatic bone, and swelling over the right hand tenderness over the chest and that she was treated conservatively. Therefore, she contends that the offence under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC was made out. She further contends that the statement of eye witness established the commission of the crime by the petitioners. Therefore, she claimed that this is not a fit case where this Court should show indulgence to the petitioners by quashing the proceedings.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:47003 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2017

¶43

The offence was allegedly committed by the petitioners on 27.11.2014. The respondent No.2 was treated at the hospital on 29.11.2014 at 09:45 p.m., There is no reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. The injuries found in wound certificate were simple in nature. The fact that the respondent No.2 had filed O.S.No.250/2015 against the petitioners herein, does establish that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 were at loggerheads over a property dispute. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioners too had filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 which resulted in C.C.No.1283/2015 and the respondent No.2 who was accused in the said case, was acquitted of the charges. Since the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are rivaling over a property dispute, it is quite possible that the petitioners and respondent No.2 had got into a scuffle, resulting in some harm to the respondent No.2 which per se is not an offence as stated in Section 95 of IPC.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is unwarranted, but would be a waste of time.

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:47003 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2017

¶46

¶47

Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.43/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354,

¶48

504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC pending trial before the III Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davanagere, is quashed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Manjappa v. State by Women'S Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjappa v. State by Women'S Police

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

R. N. Jayanth Vs the State of Karnataka by Doddaballapura Rural P.S.

Shri E Vivek Reddy Vs Smt Akkayamma

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Pramerica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd.

Sri. Lokesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Prateepa T Vs R. Venkatesh

Smt. Seeramma, Vs Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah