Allowed

Smt. Shanthi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2023CRL.P/5903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the proceedings against accused No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 354, 504, and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC, ruling that the charge sheet lacked specific allegations beyond a general charge of foul language against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.17670/2017 against accused No. 2 stood quashed.

Smt. Shanthi Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33783 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5903 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. SHANTHI W/O CHAKRADHARA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.004, SINDHU RESIDENCY, 1ST MAIN, SIMHA COLONY, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY 560 061 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

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

¶12

JAYALAKSHMI

¶13

D/O BYRAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.14/3, LAKSHMI COTTAGE, 1ST CROSS, M.K.LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. BALARAM M L, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.17670/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL.C.M.M, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 342, 323, 354, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:33783 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner-accused No.2 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶22

The 2^nd respondent lodged the FIR alleging that, accused No.1 borrowed money from the Bank by mortgaging the property belonging to the mother of the 2^nd respondent, and when the accused No.1 defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the 2^nd respondent and her mother went to the house of accused No.1 to request to make the payment, at that time, the father of accused No.1 closed the door and windows of the house and wrongfully restrained them and petitioner- accused No.2 abused the 2^nd respondent in a filthy language.

¶23

The Police after conducting the investigation submitted the charge sheet. However, dropped accused No.3 from the charge sheet stating that there is no incriminating material to proceed along with the accused No.3.

¶24

The charge sheet is that, when the respondent No.2 went to the house of accused No.1 requesting to make the payment of the loan amount, at that time, the accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in a filthy language and assaulted them and accused No.1 pulled her clothes and outraged her modesty.

¶25

The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, except the allegation that accused No.2 abused the respondent No.2,

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33783 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2022

¶28

there is no specific overact of either wrongfully restraining or assaulting the respondent No.2 and the specific overact of wrongfully restraining was against accused No.3 but subsequently dropped the charges against accused No.3 after investigation. Therefore, in the absence of any material to substantiate the allegation against accused No.2, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, the charge sheet material discloses that accused No.2 along with accused No.1 abused and assaulted respondent No.2 and also wrongfully restrained them which constitutes the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations can be considered at the time of trial, and at this stage, the same cannot be gone into.

¶30

Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Initially, the only allegation against accused No.2 in the FIR was that she abused the respondent No.2 in a filthy language when she had visited the house of accused No.1 requesting accused No.1 to make the repayment of the loan amount which was obtained by mortgaging her property. Except the said allegation there is no allegation of either wrongfully restraining nor assaulting the respondent No.2.

¶32

Except the omnibus and general allegation that accused No.2 abused respondent No.2 in a filthy language, there is no specific allegation as to how and in what manner

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:33783 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2022

¶34

accused No.2 abused respondent No.2 in a filthy language. Therefore, in the absence of any essential elements to constitute the commission of the alleged offences against the petitioner-accused No.2, prosecuting only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Criminal petition is allowed;

¶37

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.17670/2017, on the file of the Learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to accused No.2 stands quashed.

¶38

iii. The learned Magistrate to proceed against the accused No.1 in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, and the observations if any made is only for the purpose of the present petition.

¶39

iv. All contentions are kept open.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Smt. Shanthi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanthi 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

Shankar C Vs State by Bagalagunte P S

Sri Sudhir Gupta Vs Commissioner of Police

Nithin K.C. Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh Kumar Vs State by

Kiran v N @ Vasu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sevalal Sangna Basava Swamiji @ Yuvaraj Vs State of Karnataka