Allowed

Sri Ramesh Kumar v. Smt Shyamala Shree v

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2023WP/6874/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition for quashing proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners. The court quashed the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.84/2021, relying on an earlier order in a connected petition that found allegations omnibus and baseless due to delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.84/2021 against the petitioners are quashed.

Sri Ramesh Kumar Vs Smt Shyamala Shree v — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:32734 WP No. 6874 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6874 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAMESH KUMAR S/O B M KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶8

SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O RAMESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶9

BOTH ARE PERMANENT R/AT NO.23/186, SRI VENKATESHWARA KRUPA, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, KATTIGENAHALLI, AFS YELAHANKA POST, BANGALORE-560 063.

¶10

AND ALSO AT NO.8, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI DRUSTI ENCLAVE, RING ROAD, BANDIPALYA SIGNAL, GAJJAGALLI, MYSORE-570 008.

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

SMT SHYAMALA SHREE V W/O MOHAN KUMAR, D/O K VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI DRUSTI ENCLAVE, RING ROAD, BANDIPALYA SIGNAL, GAJJAGALLI, MYSORE-570 008.

¶16

NOW R/AT NO.115, 1ST MAIN, NEW METRO LAYOUT,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:32734 WP No. 6874 of 2022

¶19

NAYANDAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶20

SRI MOHAN KUMAR S/O RAMESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.23/186, SRI VENKATESHWARA KRUPA, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, KATTIGENAHALLI, AFS YELAHANKA POST, BANGALORE-560 063.

¶21

AND ALSO AT NO.8, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI DRUSTI ENCLAVE,

¶22

RING ROAD, BANDIPALYA SIGNAL, GAJJAGALLI, MYSORE-570 008.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING INITIATED IN CRL.MISC. NO.84/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-B AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is impugned in this petition.

¶29

The allegations made in the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners was the subject matter of Criminal

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32734 WP No. 6874 of 2022

¶31

Petition No.4871/2022 filed by the petitioners herein challenging the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 354, 356, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶32

This Court quashed impugned proceedings stating that the allegations made against the petitioners herein are omnibus and general allegations, and there is no specific allegation of molestation by accused No.2 which can be believed, since the said allegation is made after 4 years from the date of the alleged incident.

¶33

Therefore, this petition is also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.4871/2022 and connected matter. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.84/2021, pending on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court Bengaluru, insofar it relates to petitioners herein is stands quashed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:32734 WP No. 6874 of 2022

¶39

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

¶40

iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶41

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Ramesh Kumar v. Smt Shyamala Shree v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramesh Kumar v. Smt Shyamala Shree v

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

Shobha Devi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayan Mahadevrao Biradar Vs M/S Manthan Creation

Dr R Rajendra Prasad Vs M/S Tbs India Telematic and Biomedical Service Pvt. Ltd.

Sri.K.N.Shreyas Vs Sri.Deepchand Jain

Sri. Raghuram Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by