Allowed

Sri Anand B Patil v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CRL.P/11083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR. It held that the investigation would be an abuse of process because the first respondent lodged the FIR with malice while suppressing the material fact that her marriage was subsisting during the alleged period of the offences.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.65/2023 registered by Jeevanbheema Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

Sri Anand B Patil Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9504 CRL.P No. 11083 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11083 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ANAND B. PATIL, S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 754/2, 8TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR, POLICE QUARTERS, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 008.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ADBUTH J. KAUSHIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY JEEVANBHEEMA NAGAR POLICE, (PRESENTLY INVESTIGATED BY BANASWADI P.S) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

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

¶13

CHAITRA S.S, D/O SHIVESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT DYAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MANDAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, KARNATAKA - 577 211.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLIANT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.65/2023 U/S.406, 417, 420, 376 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9504 CRL.P No. 11083 of 2023

¶19

PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR stating that she is the constable in the woman police station, and on 25.08.2022, the petitioner-accused called her on phone and thereafter, they exchanged messages on Whatsapp, and the petitioner stated that he was in love with her, and had sexual intercourse from 23.09.2022 till 22.02.2023 by promising to marry. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused refused to marry her, and he had sexual intercourse with an intention to cheat. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 406,417,420 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for short) and later the offence under Section 376 of the IPC was invoked.

¶23

Respondent No.2 though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through her counsel.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 are not only false and frivolous, but the FIR was lodged for extraneous consideration, since the marriage of respondent No.2 was in subsistence during the said period, and her marriage was dissolved mutually by the jurisdictional Family Court on 01.03.2023.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9504 CRL.P No. 11083 of 2023

¶26

Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of the process of law.

¶27

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that the allegations made in the FIR disclose that the commission of cognizable offences, and the veracity of the allegations requires to be investigated, and at the stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

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

¶29

Perusal of the order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the Family Court at Shivamogga in M.C.No.205/2002 indicated that respondent No.2 was married to one Sri.Venugopalaraj Urs, and their marriage was dissolved mutually under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 01.03.2023. The allegations of the petitioner having sexual intercourse is from the period 23.09.2022 to 22.02.2023, and during the said period, the marriage of respondent No.2 was in subsistence.

¶30

Respondent No.2 suppressing the material fact lodged the FIR when clearly establishes that the FIR was lodged with the malice and without any probable cause for extraneous consideration.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9504 CRL.P No. 11083 of 2023

¶33

Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of the process of law.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned FIR in Crime No.65/2023 registered by the Jeevanbheema Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru stands quashed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT: BHK

Sri Anand B Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anand B Patil v. 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 E Amarnath Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sri. Partha G.N. Vs the Chairman

Sri Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Thanuja Nayaka a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Gangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. L Geetha Vs the Thasildar