Nagaraj S/O Eranna Khaji Vs the State

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS DATED 15.09.2023 IN CC NO.2080/2023 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JUDGE, GANGAVATI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, AND THEREBY QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN GANGAVATI TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.252/2022.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9992 CRL.P No. 100122 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶30

Accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.2080/2023, pending before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners having

¶33

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that respondent No.2 – wife, who has deserted her husband, is in the habit of filing false complaints. The report dated 01.07.2023 from the Counsellor of Women Helpline makes it very clear that, the wife herself had deserted her husband and efforts made by husband to bring her had failed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9992 CRL.P No. 100122 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that there are sufficient materials to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences. The first informant has suffered injury on her eye, as a result of assault made on her by the accused persons. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶37

The material on record would go to show that the marriage of accused No.1 with the first informant was solemnized on 01.11.2009 and from the said wedlock, they have two children. In the first information, it is alleged that, at the time of marriage, dowry was paid to the accused, as demanded and in spite of the same, the first informant - wife was ill-treated in her matrimonial home. On 03.01.2022, the accused persons after abusing and assaulting the victim allegedly filled maize powder to the eyes of the victim and as a result, she suffered injuries. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer had called for a report from the Counsellor of Women

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9992 CRL.P No. 100122 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Helpline, Gangavathi, before whom accused No.1 and the first informant had appeared for the purpose of counselling.

¶41

In the report, dated 01.07.2023 received from

¶42

the Counsellor, it is stated that the first informant - wife and her husband had appeared before the Counsellor in the month of December-2017 and after the counselling was done, the husband and wife had agreed to live together and accordingly, in the month of April-2018, the first petitioner had taken his wife along with him. In the month of January2022, the first petitioner - husband had once again appeared before the Counsellor and it was brought to the notice of the Counsellor that in spite of the best efforts made by him, his relationship with his wife did not improve, and she had left his company and had taken shelter in her parents’ house. In the report of the Counsellor, it is stated that in support of the allegations found in the criminal case, there is no substantive materials and the children born to the couple have expressed that they would like to stay with their father. In the said report, it is stated that the wife had

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9992 CRL.P No. 100122 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

taken shelter in her parents’ house and had informed the Counsellor that she would be filing a criminal case against her husband.

¶46

Though, it is seriously contended that in the alleged incident that had taken place on 03.01.2022, the first informant had suffered injury on her eye, the medical records of the first informant would go to show that she had undergone a cataract surgery in the month of April-2022. From the aforesaid, a serious doubt arises with regard to the allegations made by respondent No.2 against the husband and his close relatives. In the report of the Counsellor, it is clearly mentioned that, the wife could not lead a life with her husband and his family members and therefore, she had left his company and had taken shelter in her parents' house. Efforts were made by the husband to bring back his wife and lead a normal life. But it appears that the said attempt had failed, since the wife had not cooperated and she was in the habit of quarrelling with the mother of the first petitioner. The allegations made in the

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9992 CRL.P No. 100122 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

first information as well as in the charge sheet are contrary to the report of the Counsellor.

¶50

Under these circumstances, if the impugned proceedings are allowed to be continued, the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶53

(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C. No.2080/2023, pending before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC stands quashed.

¶54

SD/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Vnp / CT: BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Nagaraj S/O Eranna Khaji v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj S/O Eranna Khaji v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pundalik Fakirappa Banaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Adesh S/O Irappa Naganuri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Siddheshwar S/O. Malhari Kadam Vs Sri. Raju S/O. Bapu Gundapikar

Basamma D/O. Late Madiga Soma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sunil Tammanna Gurappagol Alias Holer Vs Sri. Beereshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Examba

Sri Kempanna S/O. Arjuna Nesargi Vs the State of Karnataka