Allowed

Sri Krishnaiah T H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2023WP/25081/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash criminal proceedings alleging offences including false imprisonment and frivolous insult after child custody dispute. Court held FIR lodged with malice due to lack of specific allegations and long gap between incident and filing, ordering quashment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned proceedings in PCR No.3/2018 before Additional Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru are hereby quashed.

Sri Krishnaiah T H Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 25081 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 25081 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI KRISHNAIAH T H S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED 83 YEARS, RETIRED GOVT. EMPLOY

¶10

SRI SURESH S/O KRISHNAIAH T H AGED 48 YEARS CIVIL ENGINEER

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI PURUSHOTHAM S/O KRISHNAIAH T H AGED 44 YEARS WORK IN PRIVATE SECTOR

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDENT AT NO.6121, 8TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, TUMAKURU CITY-572 103.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. RANGARAMU V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶18

¶19

WP No. 25081 of 2018

¶20

TUMAKURU CITY AND DISTRICT BANGALORE-572 102.

¶21

SMT YASHODHA K W/O M A GOVINDARAJU & D/O KRISHNAIAH T H AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT 5TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR SHARADHAMBA COLLEGE, ASHOKA NAGARA, TUMAKURU-572 103.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH/SETASIDE THE F.I.R. DATED 25.03.2018 IN CRIME NO.59/2018 OF NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION OF TUMKURU (P.C.R.NO.03/2018). ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT TUMAKURU. FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 120(B), 341, 362, 504, 506 OF IPC; THE COPY AT ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner No.1 is no more. Hence, the petition as against petitioner-accused No.1 stands abated.

¶28

Petitioners-accused have been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 341, 362, 504, 506 and Section 120B of IPC, alleging that, the accused No.1 is the father-inlaw, and accused No.2 and 3 are the brothers-in-laws, and the said accused were in illegal custody of the child and after

¶29

¶30

WP No. 25081 of 2018

¶31

obtaining the custody of the child from the Court, accused No.1 to 3 abused him in a filthy language, and wrongfully restrained him from proceeding further, when he was walking on the road. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the aforesaid offence is impugned in this petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused, as to how, and in what manner, each of the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also wrongfully restrained him from proceeding further. He further submits that alleged incident has taken place on 12.8.2017, and the complaint was filed on 25.3.2018 without offering any plausible explanation which clearly implies that, the FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that, the charge sheet discloses the commission of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners-accused, and the veracity of the allegations against the petitioners-accused can be considered after full fledged trial, at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference.

¶34

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

Except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation as against each of the petitioners-accused

¶36

¶37

WP No. 25081 of 2018

¶38

herein, as to how, and in what manner, they abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and wrongfully restrained him. The alleged incident has taken place on 12.8.2017 and FIR was lodged on 25.03.2018 without offering any plausible explanation. Hence, it is implied that the FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause.

¶39

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that, the dispute between the parties arises out of the custody of the child, and the FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The Writ petition is allowed

¶42

ii) The impugned proceedings in PCR No.3/2018 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Court, Tumakuru is hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri Krishnaiah T H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnaiah T H 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

T N Roopa Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Hanumegowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. S. Rajeshwari Vs the State by

Manjegowda Vs Sri Ramannagowda

Sri Javarayigowda Vs Sri Kumara

T Shantharaju Vs State of Karnataka