Dismissed

D. Manju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024CRL.P/5458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and in-laws sought quashing of proceedings after the Magistrate permitted addition of Sections 307 and 417 IPC to a charge sheet for Sections 498A and 506 IPC. The High Court found the complaint disclosed attempted strangulation omitted from the FIR, upheld the Magistrate's order, dismissed the petition with liberty to seek discharge.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Sessions Judge seeking discharge.

D. Manju Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5458 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

D. MANJU S/O DORAI N., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT 4/1, 3RD CROSS, AZADNAGAR, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018

¶9

SRI N. DORAI, S/O NATESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by GAYATHRI N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. LAKSHMI, W/O DORAI N., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

RAJU D., S/O DORAI N., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶13

PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE ALL R/AT 4TH CROSS, C.N. ROAD, BHOVI COLONY, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

¶14

SMT. D. PRIYA, W/O DORAI N., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A NO.5, ANNANAGAR,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶17

BHADRAVATHI - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI HALLUR SHIVAYOGI BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, NOW. R/BY STATE P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001

¶22

SMT. MADHUMALA, W/O D. MANJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT MIG F1/MSB, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, GOPISHETTYKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA- 577205

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRIVENKAT SATHYANARAYANA.A., HCGP FOR R1 AND SRI MALLAIAH.M.R., ADV. FOR R2)

¶25

¶26

CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.546/2023 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS CHAMARAJAPETE P.S., HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, THEREAFTER COMMITTED TO SESSIONS COURT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 AND 417 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 45TH ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU MARKED AS DOCUMENT NO.1, ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed by the petitioners - accused persons under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in SC No.546/2023 pending on the file of 45th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru, arising out of Cr. No.89/2014 of Chamarajapete Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent - State.

¶32

The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint against all the petitioners, who are husband, his parents, brother and sister, alleging that all the petitioners are harassing her physically and mentally and they also attempted to murder her by strangulating her neck, but based on her complaint the Police have registered the case against the petitioners only for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Even the Police after completing the investigation have filed the charge sheet on 27.03.2015 for the said offences.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶35

Subsequently, on the complaint filed by the father of the respondent No.2 on 28.04.2018, the Investigating Officer made a memo/request to the Court through APP on 13.06.2018 to add penal provisions of Section 307 and 417 of IPC alleging that during the course of Investigation they left those provisions and prayed the Court to permit them to include those provisions in the charge sheet.

¶36

After hearing both sides, the Magistrate acting under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. passed an order on 07.01.2023 allowing the request made by the Investigating Officer and permitted him to add Sections 307 and 417 of IPC in the charge sheet and committed the case to the Sessions Court, which is under challenge.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there is no material on record to add Sections 307 and 417 of IPC in the charge sheet and there is no document is produced or materials placed before Court to attract those provisions. He further contended that initially FIR is filed during the year 2014 and till 2018 there is no request to add any provisions of IPC, but only during 2018 when the father of the respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 28.04.2018 the Investigating Officer

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶40

approached the Magistrate to add the said provisions of IPC. Hence, petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶41

The learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State contends that there is sufficient material placed by the Investigating Officer before the Learned Magistrate and accepting the same by an order dated 07.01.2023 rightly permitted the Investigating Officer to add Sections 307 and 417 of IPC in the charge sheet by allowing the request made by the Investigating Officer on 13.06.2018. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶42

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP and on perusal of the entire material on record, of course, the respondent No.2 in her complaint filed on 30.08.2014 at page No.5 clearly stated that on return of her husband on 20.04.2014, when he went to attend the marriage of one colleague working with him, on a trivial issue of binging the milk her mother-in-law made him to press her neck and to commit murder. Thereafter, on 23.04.2014, which her father, uncle and some other relatives, observed that there is a mark in the neck and asked her husband why they are all tried to strangulate respondent No.2.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶44

Based on the said marks in the neck and other relevant material, the father of the respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the Investigating Officer on 28.04.2018 to add Sections 307 and 417 of IPC in the charge sheet.

¶45

Based on the complaint of the father of the respondent No.2, the Investigating Officer made a request to the Learned Magistrate to add Sections 307 and 417 of IPC in the charge sheet. After considering the rival contentions of both sides, the Learned Magistrate by a detailed order permitted the Investigating Officer to add Sections 307 and 417 of IPC in the charge sheet. Even in the complaint initially lodged by the respondent No.2 there is a mention about the accused persons trying to strangulate the respondent No.2, but the police have not noticed the same and the relevant offences were not included in the FIR.

¶46

On perusal of the records, it is clearly stated by the respondent No.2 about the attempt to murder her by the accused persons by strangulating her and she has mentioned the said aspect in the complaint. While preparing the FIR the Police have failed to include relevant offences which attract these aspects. On subsequent occasions also the accused

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶49

persons tried to murder the respondent No.2 by strangulating her. It is when the father of the respondent No.2 who filed a complaint on 28.04.2018, the Investigating Officer requested the Learned Magistrate to include the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 417 of IPC in the charge sheet. The Learned Magistrate by a detailed order allowed the request and permitted the Investigating Officer to include the said offences. The trial Court has already committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the trial is under progress.

¶50

Such being the case, merely the Investigating Officer making the request before the Learned Magistrate to add the offence punishable under Sections 417 of IPC in the charge sheet. Hence, the petitioners have not made out a case to quash the said order passed by the Learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the following order:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The petition is devoid of merits and the same is

¶53

dismissed.;

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:4774 CRL.P No. 5458 of 2023

¶55

(ii) However, liberty if served to the petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge seeking for discharge.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

D. Manju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Manju 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 Salman Saleem Khan @ Salman Ahmed Vs the Central Beurau of Investigation

Mr. Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nipun Bhandari Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh Malli Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Origin D- Fab Pvt. Ltd, Vs Sri B N Ramachandra Reddy

Sri. Sayeed Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka