Partly allowed

Somashekara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023CRL.P/6254/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against two petitioners following an FIR alleging domestic violence and strangulation. The court inferred false implication due to the respondent's delayed statement and the allegation of an illicit relationship, holding that continuation was an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed, and the proceedings in CC No. 1919/2021 arising out of Crime No. 12/2021 pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan are quashed.

Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37480 CRL.P No. 6254 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6254 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SOMASHEKARA, S/O APPAJI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT ADUVALLI, HASSANA TOWN, HASSANS TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 201.

¶8

SMT. DEVIKA @ DEVIRAMMA W/O SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT ADUVALLI, HASSANA TOWN, HASSANS TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 201.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. B LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSANA WOMEN POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

SMT. HEMALATHA S W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NEAR ADI CHUNCHANAGIRI, KANNADA HIGHER PRISMARY SCHOOL, GOWRIKOPPALU, HASSAN 573 141.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1919/2021 (CRIME NO.12/2021 OF HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:37480 CRL.P No. 6254 of 2021

¶20

CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307,504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that her husband, parents-in-law, brother-in-law, including the petitioners assaulted and abused her in filthy language. The police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the further statement, the respondent No.2 denied the allegations leveled against her family members, however, alleged that the petitioners herein tried to kill her by strangulating with the veil. The police dropped the family members in the charge sheet and filed a charge sheet against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 on 18.1.2021 alleging that, on 7.1.2021, the petitioners along with family members had threatened, abused and assaulted her. The further statement was recorded on 8.2.2021, wherein she denied the allegations made against the family members, but alleged that these petitioners tried to kill her by strangulating with the veil. Even the statements of the alleged eyewitness were recorded after one month from the date of alleged incident. The respondent No.2 having not spoken about the

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37480 CRL.P No. 6254 of 2021

¶27

assault or attempt made by the petitioners to kill her on 7.1.2021, but strangely has alleged that these petitioners tried to strangulate her. The statement was recorded after one month from the date of registration of FIR. Hence, it is inferred that these petitioners have been falsely implicated, since it is alleged that the husband of the respondent No.2 was having an illicit relationship with the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶30

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.1919/2021 arising out of Crime No.12/2021) pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, stands quashed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

BKM

Somashekara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somashekara 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.P. Narayanadas Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Sadiq Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Jesus Sudhir Lall Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Naveen H.S Vs the State Represented by

Mr. Suhas. T. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bhargav B M Vs State of Karnataka