Allowed

Nagabhushan S P v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024CRL.P/1183/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against five petitioners accused of various offences including criminal breach of peace and outraging modesty. The court found insufficient evidence in the medical report and witness statements to support specific allegations and concluded the FIR was lodged with malice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3419/2022 stand quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners-accused.

Nagabhushan S P Vs the State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10064 CRL.P No. 1183 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1183 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NAGABHUSHAN S.P., S/O PUTTALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.28/1, SANTRUPTHI, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, MUTTURAYASWAMY LAYOUT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH - 560 097.

¶10

PARTHA YADAV, S/O ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.69, 2^ND CROSS, 9^TH CROSS, KAVERI ENCLAVE, KANCYRAM NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶11

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

¶12

SMT. KAVYASHREE, W/O SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 92, 7^TH MAIN, PRAKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶13

SMT. AMRUTHASHREE A., W/O NAGABHUSHAN S.P., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 28/1, SANTRUPTHI, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, MUTTURAYASWAMY LAYOUT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10064 CRL.P No. 1183 of 2023

¶15

DIWAKAR RAJU, S/O H. VENKATESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT PAPAREDDY PALYA ROAD, CHIKKABANAWARA, GANNIGARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 090

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YALAHANKA TOWN POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

KUM. DISHA A., D/O KOKILA P., AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO. 83, 2^ND MAIN, CAUVERY ENCLAVE, KANSHIRAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANTHOSH RAJ URS, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.3419/2022 REGISTERED BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.323,341,354,448,504,506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 30^th ACMM COURT, BENGALURU.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners, accused Nos.1 to 5, are sought to be prosecuted for offenses punishable under Sections 448, 504, 506,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10064 CRL.P No. 1183 of 2023

¶28

323, 341, and 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They are before this Court challenging the cognizance taken of the aforementioned offenses.

¶29

The prosecution's case is that there was a monetary transaction between the accused and CW2, the mother of the complainant. On October 29, 2021, the accused allegedly trespassed into the hotel office, verbally abused CW2 with filthy language, issued life threats, and physically assaulted CWs 1 and 2. Specifically, it is alleged that accused No. 3 pulled CWs 1 and 2, accused No. 4 pulled CW2, and accused No. 5 abused CWs 1 and 2 in filthy language, all on the instigation of the other accused. The cognizance taken of these offenses is impugned in this petition.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the statements of the de facto complainant and CW1, the mother of the de facto complainant, it appears that, except for the allegations of criminal trespass, verbal abuse, physical assault, and pulling, there is no substantial material to support the specific allegation that accused No. 4 pulled the dupatta of the de facto complainant. The incident allegedly occurred when the petitioners went to the hotel office to demand the repayment of money borrowed by CW2.

¶31

The Wound Certificate, produced along with the charge sheet, indicates that the de facto complainant sustained a 2 x 2 cm lacerated wound on the left side of the ankle, but the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10064 CRL.P No. 1183 of 2023

¶33

names of the assailants are not mentioned in the wound certificate. The injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are described as simple in nature. A review of the FIR and statements of witnesses, namely CWs 2 to 4, indicates that all the accused assaulted the de facto complainant, but there is no specific detail regarding the individual actions of each accused in the assault. Furthermore, there is no allegation that any of the accused assaulted the de facto complainant on her left leg, thereby failing to substantiate the claim that the de facto complainant sustained injuries due to the alleged assault by the accused. Consequently, the charge sheet materials do not disclose the commission of an offense under Section 323 of the IPC.

¶34

The allegation that all the accused pulled the dupatta of the de facto complainant is also not supported by specific evidence. The de facto complainant and charge sheet witnesses state that accused No. 3 pulled the dupatta of CW2, the mother of the de facto complainant. However, there is no statement from any charge sheet witnesses suggesting that accused No.3 acted with the intention of outraging the modesty of CW1 by pulling her dupatta. Thus, the allegation against accused No. 3 does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute an offense under Section 354 of the IPC.

¶35

The alleged incident took place when the accused went to the office of CW2 to demand the repayment of borrowed money, and during the ensuing heated argument, a scuffle

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10064 CRL.P No. 1183 of 2023

¶37

occurred. It cannot be concluded that the petitioners, with the intent to commit an offense, criminally trespassed into the office of CW2. The dispute appears to have arisen from the alleged non-payment of money borrowed by CW2 from accused No.1. Therefore, it seems the FIR was lodged with malice, without probable cause, to wreak vengeance, and with a revengeful intent. The continuation of the criminal proceedings under these circumstances would constitute an abuse of the legal process.. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3419/2022 on the file of 30^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused herein are concerned, stand quashed.

¶41

(iii) In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2023 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Nagabhushan S P v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagabhushan S P v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Smt Thimmakka Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Sridhar Rao Vs P. Vasudeva Acharya

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Vs M/S Aavanti Solar Energy Private Limited

Sri Prabhakar Shetty Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company (Mescom)

Amtur Raphe Vs State of Karnataka

Mammunhi @ Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka