Allowed

Sri. Jayaprakash M. U. v. State by Peenya Police Station

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023CRL.P/5225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitioner sought quashing of charge sheet against petitioner accused No.4 alleging abduction, forced marriage, and sexual assault. Court held no specific allegation against petitioner for abduction or assault; evidence suggested consensual arrangement. Proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings in S.C.No.1231/2022 insofar as it relates accused No.4 are quashed.

Sri. Jayaprakash M. U. Vs State by Peenya Police… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39964 CRL.P No. 5225 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5225 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. JAYAPRAKASH M.U., S/O M.R.UMASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O NO.701, AGRAHARA BEEDI, MAGADI TOWN, WARD NO.19, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

SMT. VANASHREE, W/O SRI. GUNASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.554, 5^TH CROSS, BEHIND BBMP OFFICE, HMT LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 013.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.B.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:39964 CRL.P No. 5225 of 2022

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.565/2022 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNSIHABLE U/S 363, 366, 505, 342, 323, 420, 376 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 31^ST ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/accused No.4 is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 363, 366, 506, 342, 323, 420, 376 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

The summary of the charge sheet is that, accused No.1 during the subsistence of his first marriage proposed to C.W.1 to marry him and C.W.2 is said to have stated that she would solemnize her marriage only after the first marriage is dissolved. Thereafter, accused No.1 induced the survivor C.W.1 to speak to him. On 19.05.2021, the accused No.1 called upon the C.W.1 survivor to come near HMT Layout, BBMP Office. Under the guise of speaking to her, accused No.1 forcibly took C.W.1 survivor in his car and accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common intention of locking the survivor in a room. On 20.05.2021 accused Nos.1 to 4 took C.W.1 to a temple and forcibly performed her marriage with accused No.1. The C.W.1 was also restrained from speaking to her family members.

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39964 CRL.P No. 5225 of 2022

¶25

Thereafter, accused No.1 took the jewelleries belonging to C.W.1 and accused Nos.1 and 3 threatened the survivor with dire consequences if she did not obey accused No.1. The accused No.1 against the wish of C.W.1 had forcible sexual intercourse. Thereafter in the month of August-2021, the survivor escaped from the accused. On 28.08.2021 the accused No.1 again abducted her in a car and took her to his residence and locked her in a room. On 25.09.2021 the survivor again escaped and thereafter lodged the FIR.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the photographs annexed to the petition clearly establishes that the marriage between the defacto complainant and accused No.1 was consensual one and thereafter they have celebrated the birthdays. The alleged incident had taken place on 19.05.2021 and the FIR was lodged on 25.09.2021 only after the relationship between accused No.1 and the survivor turned sour. The petitioner/accused No.4 who is the brother of accused No.1 has been falsely implicated.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet material discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein, and the veracity of the allegation can be considered at the time of trial, and cannot be gone into in this petition.

¶28

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State reiterates the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:39964 CRL.P No. 5225 of 2022

¶31

Considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.

¶32

The alleged incident of abduction which had taken place on 19.05.2021 is against accused No.1. Except the allegation that the accused herein along with the other accused locked the survivor in the room, there is no allegation that this petitioner either connived in abducting the survivor nor there is any allegation of sexual assault. The photographs annexed to the petition establishes that the alleged marriage between accused No.1 and the survivor was consensual one and thereafter, they celebrated the birthdays and the photographs have not been controverted by filing objection. Therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued against the petitioner only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation in the absence of specific overtact against the petitioner herein of he either abducting or performing the marriage of accused No.1 with the survivor forcibly. The continuation of criminal proceedings would not subserve the ends of justice and it will be an abuse of process of law against accused No.4. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶35

ii. The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.1231/2022 on the file of Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru insofar it relates accused No.4 is hereby quashed.

¶36

iii. The learned Sessions Judge to proceed against the other accused in accordance with law without being influenced

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:39964 CRL.P No. 5225 of 2022

¶38

¶39

by the observations made in this order and the observations made if any, is only for the purpose of present petition.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri. Jayaprakash M. U. v. State by Peenya Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jayaprakash M. U. v. State by Peenya Police Station

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

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri Vs State of Karnataka

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Manjunath M.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Mahammad Jaufar Vs State by

Ms. Simi Kalakamba Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Elizabeth Vs State of Karnataka