Allowed

Shivakumar Patil v. the State through Yadgiri

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024CRL.P/201535/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings against the petitioner for matrimonial offences. The court held that the wife's FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause after she had left the matrimonial home, constituting an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.64/2020 against accused No.1 are quashed.

Shivakumar Patil Vs the State through Yadgiri — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3950 CRL.P No. 201535 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201535 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHIVAKUMAR PATIL S/O DEVINDRAPPA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LEGAL PRACTITIOER, RESIDENCE OF SONNA, TALUKA AFZALPUR, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI, NOW RESIDING AT: H.NO.51/2, WEST WING, AKKAMAHADEVI COLONY, KALABURAGI-585107.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE THROUGH YADGIRI Digitally signed by WOMEN POLICE STATION, R HEMALATHA TALUKA AND DISTRICT: YADGIRI, Location: HIGH COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107. 2. PADMAVATHI W/O SHIVKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT C/O SIDRAMAPPA BAKCHED, LAXMI NAGAR, OPP. GOVT. COLLEGE, NEAR VENKATESH MANDIR, YADGIRI-585 222. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. INAMDAR, HCGP FOR R-1; R2 SERVED)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3950 CRL.P No. 201535 of 2023

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 09.06.2020 AND QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.43/2019 OF YADGIRI WOMEN P.S. YADGIRI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, YADGIRI, IN C.C.NO. 64/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 498(A), 323, 354, 114, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.64/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Yadgiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498(A), 323, 354, 114, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶21

The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences, is impugned in this petition by accused No.1.

¶22

The summary of the charge-sheet is that the de-facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. After their marriage they were residing in the matrimonial home at Solapur. The accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, accused No.3 is the brother-in-law, accused No.4 is the wife of accused No.3, accused No.5 is the resident of Solapur and friend of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the wife of accused No.5. Accused Nos.2 to 4 used to visit the matrimonial home often. They along with other

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3950 CRL.P No. 201535 of 2023

¶24

accused used to subject her to cruelty both mentally and physically. They have two children out of their marriage. The accused No.1 - husband used to consume alcohol daily and used to subject her to cruelty both mentally and physically. The accused No.1 has filed a petition for dissolving their marriage and also registered several cases against the de-facto complainant and her family members. On 09.11.2019 when she was staying at her parental home, the accused came to the parental home and abused her in filthy language and also assaulted with their hands.

¶25

The petitioner filed a petition for dissolving his marriage with the defacto complainant in the year 2018, and also other criminal cases against the defacto complainant and family members for extortion and assault. The FIR was lodged on 29.12.2019 only after filing a petition for dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, and also case against the defacto complainant and her family members for extortion and assault.

¶26

The respondent No.2 - defacto complainant though served with notice has not chosen to appear through her counsel or in person. The petitioner has categorically stated that the defacto complainant left matrimonial home in the year 2017, and without his consent/knowledge took 40 tolas of gold, and cash of Rs.1,20,000/- belonging to him, he has lodged a complaint against her and also against her brother for threatening for criminal intimidation, and extortion for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The defacto complainant has not controverted the allegation. The

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3950 CRL.P No. 201535 of 2023

¶28

defacto complainant having left the matrimonial home in the year 2017 lodged the FIR in the year 2019 without offering any plausible explanation only after the petitioner herein filed a petition for dissolving his marriage with the defacto complainant, and also registered a case against the defacto complainant and family members for extortion.

¶29

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view that the FIR was lodged by the defacto complainant with malice and without probable cause to wreak vengeance against the petitioner and his family members. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶32

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.64/2020 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Yadgiri, insofar as it relates to accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶33

In view of the disposal of the main petition, the pending I.As. if any does not survive for consideration and hence, they are also disposed of.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

bkm

Shivakumar Patil v. the State through Yadgiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakumar Patil v. the State through Yadgiri

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

Chandrashekar Vs Mr V2 Cargo Movers

K.S. Eshwaraiah Vs Divisionl Controller

Smt Rekha Vs Lokesh

Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Kurub Vs the State of Karnataka

Vittal Vs the State of Karnataka