Karnataka High Court
Ms. Ranjitha Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3673 OF 2015
Between:
Ms. Ranjitha Nayak,
Aged about 25 years,
D/o Ramesh Nayak,
No.24, 12th Cross,
Shobha Market,
Navarang,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010. ...Petitioner
(By Shri. B.A. Belliappa, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka,
By the Station House Officer,
Nazarbad Police Station,
Mysore City - 570 001.
2. Sri. Puttarudraiah T.N.,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o late Nanjundappa,
Resident of No.256,
1st Main, 1st Cross,
Giridarshini Layout,
2
Mysore City - 570 001. ...Respondents
(By Shri. K.R. Keshav Murthy, SPP - II for State;
Shri. H.R. Ramalinge Gowda, Advocate for R2)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 16.04.2013
passed in S.C.No110/2013 pending on the file of V Addl.
District and S.J., Mysore, for an offence P/U/S 498A and
304B of IPC r/w Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and ordering
process against the petitioner/second accused for her
appearance in the case before the Court.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the following circumstances. The complainant is the father of one deceased Kavya who was said to be married to one Nishanth. It transpires that Kavya had committed suicide. It is alleged by the complainant, the father of Kavya that since his son-in-law was having an affair with the present petitioner. It is one of the reasons for his daughter to have committed suicide and 3 the cruelty that was committed by his son-in-law on his daughter was compounded by the relationship the son-in- law had with the present petitioner. It is this suspicion which is the basis for arraigning the present petitioner as accused No.2.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the provisions invoked are Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both these sections would require that there is relationship between the husband and another accused to come within the mischief of the said sections. The allegation against the present petitioner, even if it is accepted, it would only make her his friend and not a relative and a married woman whose name has been unnecessarily dragged by the complainant in having made those allegations on suspicion and therefore would submit that since the provisions are not attracted, no case is made out against the petitioner. On mere suspicion of the complainant the petitioner being 4 dragged to the criminal proceedings for no fault of hers results in miscarriage of justice.
3. The learned State Public Prosecutor however would submit that he should be given time to secure the records and to substantiate the circumstance that there was indeed an established relationship between the accused husband of Kavya and the present petitioner who had illicit relationship which was one of the main cause for Kavya to have committed suicide and this would be evidenced by text messages that were exchanged by the petitioner with the son-in-law of the complainant which would indicate that there was a firm relationship between the two which was one of the causes for the commission of suicide by the deceased.
4. In the above facts and circumstances, even if it could be established that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the husband of the deceased the fact 5 that the petitioner is not a relative of the husband and it would not attract the provisions of Sections 304-B and 498-A and the proceedings against the petitioner and therefore misconceived and is humiliation for a woman who is already married to another to face these proceedings. Consequently the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C. No.110/2013 on the file of the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl