Partly allowed

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah v. Smt. S.Chandrakala

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023CRL.P/7177/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed in part a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court held that prosecuting the fourth petitioner was unwarranted due to lack of specific allegations against him, while proceedings against other petitioners continued.

What did the court decide?

The petition against the fourth petitioner was quashed; proceedings against other petitioners were allowed to continue.

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah Vs Smt. S.Chandrakala — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7177 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O KARIBASAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶8

SMT. NIRMALAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶9

1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NEAR BUS STAND NARASAPURA POST, KOLAR TQ. & DIST. - 563 133

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT.ROOPA W/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶12

SRI PRAKASH S/O CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶13

3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.32, 2^ND ‘B’ CROSS, I MAIN, RMV II STAGE, I BLOCK, NEAR MEKHRI CIRCLE ASHWATH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. S.CHANDRAKALA W/O M.RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶19

MASTER SHASHANK SWAROOP.R. S/O M.RAJESH SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.S.CHANDRAKALA (1^ST RESPDT.)

¶20

1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.24, SAMRUDHI NILAYA, AGRAHARA, SAMPIGEHALLI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 064

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. JANEKERE C KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THAT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2019 PASSED BY THE MMTC-VI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.49/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution initiated by the respondent No.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act, 2005’) pending consideration before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court at Bengaluru in C.Misc.No.49/2019.

¶28

The respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section

¶29

12 of the Act, 2005 for the below mentioned reliefs:

¶30

a. Residence orders Under Section 19:

¶31

i. Direct the Respondents to secure same level of alternative accommodation to aggrieved person/Petitioners.

¶32

ii. Direct the Respondent No. 4 not to alienate the SCHEDULE PROPERTY 1 bearing Site No. 28, in Khatha No. 215/120/4 and 120/3, situated at Krishnarajapura, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Now BBMP Ward No. 52, Bangalore Measuring East to West 30 feet, North to South 40 feet total measurement 1200 Sq. Feet, bounded on:

¶33

East by : Site No. 27 West by : Site No. 29 North by : Site No. 20A South by : 25 feet Road

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶36

ii. Direct the Respondents not to alienate or encumber the ancestral properties belonging to Respondents in below Sy. Nos.

¶37

SCHEDULE PROPERTY - 2

¶38

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy. No. 225, measuring 1 Acre 2 Guntas, Sy. No. 226/2 measuring 4-Acres 8 Guntas and Sy. No. 228/7 1 Acre 32 Guntas situated at Narasapura Village, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District totally measuring 7 Acres 2 Guntas bounded on:

¶39

East by: Road

¶40

West by: Sy. No. 234 and 235

¶41

North by: Sy. No. 223, 224 and 230 respectively South by: Sy. No. 227, 236 and 270 respectively

¶42

SCHEDULE PROPERTY-3

¶43

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy. No. 60//2 extent 8 guntas, Khata No. 143, Sy. No. 60//1 extent 11 guntas, Khata No. 143, situated at Nandagudi Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District totally measuring 19 Guntas bounded on:

¶44

East by: Sy. No. 59 West by: Tank Road North by: Gramatana South by: Sy. No. 61

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶47

SCHEDULE PROPERTY - 4

¶48

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Commercial House List No. 920 situated Narasapura, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District measuring East to West: 35 feet, North to South: 110 feet in all measuring 3850 sq. feet bounded on the:

¶49

East by : Private Property

¶50

West by : Private Property

¶51

North by : Raja Kaluve

¶52

South by : Narasapur-Kolar Highway Road

¶53

SCHEDULE PROPERTY - 5

¶54

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Commercial Shopping Complex, No. 921 situated Narasapura, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District measuring East to West: 42 feet, North to South: 38 feet in all measuring 1596 sq. feet bounded on the:

¶55

East by : Private Property

¶56

West by : Gramatana Road

¶57

North by : Private Property

¶58

South by : Narasapur-Kolar Highway Road

¶59

b. Monetary Relief's Under Section 20:

¶60

i. Direct the Respondents to return the gold ornaments and silver articles taken forcefully from the No. 1 and 2. Petitioner

¶61

ii. Direct the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 40,000/- to Petitioner No. 1 and 2 for maintenance.

¶62

iii. Direct the Respondents to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for Legal expenditure

¶63

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶64

c. Compensation Order Under Section 22:

¶65

Direct the Respondents to grant compensation or damages Domestic Violence Under Section 22 a lump of and Rs. 20,00,000/- for the Domestic Violence, mental torture, pain and suffering physical, mental and emotional trauma suffered by the aggrieved person/Petitioners.

¶66

d. And pass any order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of Justice and equity.”

¶67

She filed an application for interim relief to direct the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month towards her maintenance and the maintenance of the child. She also sought for exparte order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein from alienating the properties to any person till disposal of the petition. The trial Court passed an order rejecting I.A No.1 and allowed I.A No.2 and restrained the respondents therein from alienating the properties and from creating any encumbrance over the schedule properties No.1 to 5. The aforesaid order needs to be modified. The petitioners have therefore challenged the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 in this petition.

¶68

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2, the petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-law while the petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1. He submits that there are no allegations made against the petitioner No.4 herein but a false claim is made that the petitioner No.4 joined the other petitioners in encouraging the petitioner No.1 to cause domestic violence. He contends that except this, there are no allegations against petitioner No.4 about commission of any domestic violence and therefore, the proceedings against him deserves to be quashed.

¶71

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

¶72

A perusal of the petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the trial Court indicates that her grievance was against the petitioner No.1 who had abandoned her and the child and that he had failed to pay the maintenance to the respondent No.2 and her child. She also alleged that the petitioner No.1 had gifted away the properties mentioned in the schedule to the petitioner No.3 so as to deprive her claim of

¶73

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:43009 CRL.P No. 7177 of 2019

¶75

maintenance. In so far as petitioner No.4 is concerned, the allegations made against him is that whenever the petitioner No.1 met the petitioner No.4, he used to be instigated against the respondent No.2. Except this, there are no allegations forthcoming from the petition filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner No.4. Therefore, unless the respondent No.2 indicated domestic violence of whatsoever nature by petitioner No.4, prosecuting him is unwarranted.

¶76

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowedin-part. The petition filed by the respondent No.2 against petitioner No.4 herein is quashed. However, the proceedings shall continue against the other petitioners.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah v. Smt. S.Chandrakala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah v. Smt. S.Chandrakala

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

The Commissioner Vs Rajashekar C

Prashant Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh G Vs Smt Impana Naik K

Smt Dhanalaxmi Vs Cuddapah Sri Paramahamsa Sachidananda Yogeeshwar'S Mathalayam Trust Regd.

Sandhya Realtors Private Limited Vs the State by Marathalli Police Station

Smt. P.C. Rukmani Vs Namera K. Devaiah