Allowed

Arjun S v. State by Channammanakere Achukattu Police

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023CRL.P/5899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and allowed discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., quashing the order holding petitioners to be tried for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 509 IPC due to lack of material evidence including injuries and breach of public peace. The petitioners were discharged from all alleged offences.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed insofar as it relates to sections 323, 504, 506, 509 IPC; Section 239 Cr.P.C. application allowed; petitioners discharged.

Arjun S Vs State by Channammanakere… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41469 CRL.P No. 5899 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5899 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARJUN S., S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.47, 5^TH B CROSS, 34^TH MAIN, BHAVANI HBCS LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050.

¶9

SMT. ANNAPOORNA, W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO. 47, 5^TH B CROSS, 34^TH MAIN, BHAVANI HBCS LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHUKATTU POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

LAKSHMI VIJAYAKUMAR, W/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.44, 34^TH CROSS, 34^TH MAIN, BANAGIRINAGARA, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:41469 CRL.P No. 5899 of 2022

¶19

(BY SRI. VENKATASATHYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. MANJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED BY THE II A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.16905/2019 HOLIDING THAT THE FIRST PETITIONER TO BE TRIED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.504,506,509 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 239 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 who are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 506, 509, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') filed an application under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'Cr.PC') for discharging them from the offences alleged.

¶24

2. The learned Magistrate allowed the application in part, discharging accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354(A), accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D) and under Section 323 of IPC and further held that accused No.1 has to be tried for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and accused Nos.1 to 3 to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any material to substantiate that the defacto

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:41469 CRL.P No. 5899 of 2022

¶28

complainant has sustained any injuries much less simple injuries so as to constitute the commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable. He further submits that the intentional insult must be of such a degree resulting in causing breach of public peace or commission of any other offences by the defacto complaint so as to satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

¶29

4. Learned HCGP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submits that the charge sheet material discloses the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners and learned magistrate, after perusing the charge sheet material has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant interference.

¶30

5. Considered submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

¶31

6. Admittedly, the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the defacto complainant which was fixed was not solemnized since the defacto complainant did not come forward to solemnize stating that petitioner No.1 was in the habit of harassing over trivial issues. Thereafter, the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with another person and the petitioners herein started following respondent No.2 persuading her not to marry

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:41469 CRL.P No. 5899 of 2022

¶34

another person and to marry petitioner No.1. The incident is alleged to have taken place when respondent No.2 refused to marry petitioner No.1 which does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of offence of the outraging modesty. To constitute an offence under Section 323, the charge witness ought to have sustained simple injuries. In the instant case, there is no material to substantiate that respondent No.2 had sustained simple injuries due to the assault made by the petitioners herein.

¶35

7. The intentional insult must be of such a degree so as to cause breach of public peace or commission of any other offences by the defacto complaint / respondent No.2. In the instant case, the abusive language used by the petitioners has not resulted in breach of public peace or commission of any other offences. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶38

ii. The impugned order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in C.C.No.16905/2019, insofar, it relates holding that petitioner No.1 to be tried for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504,

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41469 CRL.P No. 5899 of 2022

¶40

506, 509 of IPC and petitioner No.2 to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of IPC is hereby quashed and consequently, application filed under Section 239 of Cr.PC is allowed in the entirety and the petitioners are discharged of the offences alleged against them.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:SNN

Arjun S v. State by Channammanakere Achukattu Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun S v. State by Channammanakere Achukattu 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

Sri Ravindranath B.L Vs Sri.H R Puttaboyi

Mr. Anjay Kumar Singh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. L.K. Shivananda Vs the State by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sri N R M Nagarajan Vs State of Karnataka

Noorul Baig Vs State by Inspector of Police

Sri K.Mohammad Thabsheer Vs State of Karnataka