Dismissed

Smt. Shruthi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024CRL.P/7409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by four accused persons seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C. No.24075/2019 for alleged assault and private prosecution offences. The court dismissed the petition, observing that when both case and counter-case are registered with injuries to both sides, the Court cannot decide the aggressor and must leave the matter for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Smt. Shruthi Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7409 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHRUTHI

¶8

W/O. SRI. GOWRISH S., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.195, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, KYATHAMARANAHALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU-570019

¶9

SRI SANDEEP S/O SRI B A GANGADHARA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO.106, B BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS, JYOTHI NAGAR, MYSURU-570019

¶10

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O SRI GANGADHARA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.115/142, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, JSS OLD BUILDING ROAD, MYSURU-570011

¶12

SRI. VISHWAS M S/O SRI MANJUNATH N, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O 1038/4, CHINMAYA NILAYA, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, ADITYA LAYOUT, HINKAL, YASHASWI CONVENTION CENTRE, MYSURU-570017

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶14

SRI KUMAR

¶15

S/O LATE SRI A M ANNAIAH CHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.130, BEHIND FLOUR MILL, YARAGANAHALLI, MYSURU-570011.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JALAHALLI POLICE BENGALURU

¶20

REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001

¶21

SRI GOWRISH

¶22

S/O SRI SRIKANTACHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.142/A, GROUND FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, SUNDARANAGARA, GOKULA, MYSURU-560054.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MADHUKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.24075/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI A.C.M.M BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143,147,448,323,324,506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24075/2019 arising out of Cr.No.60/2019 registered by the Jalahalli Police station and charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 324 and 506 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C.

¶32

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 who is said to be husband of petitioner No.1 filed complaint before police on 20.06.2019 alleging that she has married petitioner No.1 in the year 2009 and after 2018, petitioner said to be lodged complaint against respondent No.2 and the same

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶36

was withdrawn and subsequently, petitioner was said to be always insisting and demanding Rs.20,00,000/- and he said to have paid Rs.7,50,000/- so far and she was always asking respondent No.2 to come and stay at Mysuru and she said to be left house in 02.05.2019. On this background on 19.06.2019 when he was in house, accused Nos.1 and 6 including deceased accused No.5 came in car bearing registration No.KA 53 MB 3582 and after getting down from car, they came and demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as they wanted to construct a house in Mysuru. All the accused persons is stated to have been assaulted with iron rod and kicked on private part of the complainant by accused No.3 and other accused have assaulted him with axe and caused injuries. Later Hoysala patrol Police came to the spot and took them to the police station. Accordingly, after taking treatment, he has lodged the complaint. The police initiated the matter and filed charge sheet.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner No.1 filed complaint against respondent No.2 and his family persons on 19.06.2019 itself for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 324 of I.P.C and other

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶39

offences and as counter case, respondent No.2 filed a false complaint against the petitioner on the next date i.e., on 20.06.2019. Absolutely there is no material to show that these accused persons have committed offence assaulting respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 as an accused previously has filed complaint in 2011 and it was withdrawn and he was continuously harassing the petitioner and they came only for settlement and at that time he himself assaulted and filed false complaint as a counter blast. Hence, prays for quashing the same as against judicial process of law.

¶40

Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 and High Court Government Pleader filed objections to the petition contending that the incident took place when there was a quarrel between both the parties in the house of respondent No.2 and when accused No.1 also present and other accused came in a car and assaulted. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

Having heard the arguments of both the sides, a

¶42

complaint is filed by petitioner No.1 Shruthi against respondent No.2 and others. A case is registered in Cr.No.60/2019 on

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶44

19.06.2019 at 11.00 p.m. The date of incident was mentioned as 19.06.2019 at 10.00 a.m, place of incident at Sl.No.4 is mentioned as No.142/A, Gorund Floor, 4^th Cross, Gokula, Bengaluru. On perusal of the complaint filed by petitioner No.1, where she has stated that on 19.06.2019 when she was with accused No.1, the family members came for settlement and accused No.1 i.e., respondent No.2 was trying to pour petrol and assaulted her, hence she was scared and at that time family members came and rescued her. Respondent No.3 himself assaulted them. Likewise complaint made by respondent No.2 also reveals that on 19.06.2019 at 9.20 p.m. when he was in the house, accused persons came and assaulted. The place of incident is one and the same, time is also one and the same. Though the complaint filed by respondent No.2 was 20.06.2019 in the night, whereas the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 was one day earlier, but the fact remains that the incident took place on 19.06.2019 between 9.30 and 10.00 a.m. in the house of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 at No.142/A, Gorund, 4^th Cross, Gokula, Bengaluru.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶47

When the case and counter case have been registered and when injuries are sustained by both groups i.e., husband group as well as wife group and Hoysala Police came and took all of them to the police station, wherein complaint came to be lodged. Therefore, when case and counter case have been registered and charge sheet was filed in both the cases, the Court cannot venture into whereby who is aggressor for the commission of the offences and that has to be considered by the trial Court after full fledged trial. That too both case and counter case shall be tried by the same Judge and deliver the judgment on the same day, in order to verify who is the aggressor for the offence.

¶48

Of course petitioner No.1 as a victim already filed case in 2011 for the offence under Section 498A and it was withdrawn and later both of them resided together, subsequently once again quarrel took place between them and second complaint came to be lodged. Therefore, when both the cases are registered against each party, the Court cannot conduct the mini trial for passing order on the same case. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits. However, it is made

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50451 CRL.P No. 7409 of 2024

¶50

clear that whatever the order passed by this Court shall not be influenced by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Petition is dismissed.

¶53

SD/(K.NATARAJAN)

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Smt. Shruthi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shruthi v. the 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

Smt. B N Asha Vs Dr G P Basavaraj

Sri N Srinivasa Vs Smt Manjula

P C Bhagyalakshmi Vs P Ranganath

Sri. Murgesh Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Suresh Kumar G R Vs State of Karnataka

Executive Director Vs M/S Milan Polymers Pvt. Ltd.