Karnataka High Court
Smt.Suramma W/O Thipperudrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1: R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100214/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SURAMMA W/O THI PPERUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: NEAR MALLAMMA TEMPLE,
W.NO.5, KAKARLATOTA, BALLARI .
2. THIPPERUDRAPPA S/O LAT E GURRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 67 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED EM PLOY EE,
R/O: NEAR MALLAMMA TEMPLE,
W.NO.5, KAKARLATOTA, BALLARI .
3. BHAGYAMMA D/O THIPPERUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS,
OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: NEAR MALLAMMA TEMPLE,
W.NO.5, KAKARLATOTA, BALLARI .
4. MALLIKARJUNA S/ O D.HONNURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O: NEAR MALLAMMA TEMPLE,
W.NO.5, KAKARLATOTA, BALLARI .
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AMARE GOUDA AND SMT. M.KEERTHI , ADVS.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
:2:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD.
2. SMT.HOSURAMMA W/O HANAMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: BOMMAGATTA VILLAGE,
TQ: SANDUR,
DIST: BALLARI-583128.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI . SRINIVAS B.NAIK , ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.118/2018
PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF IV-ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC COURT , BALLARI, U/S 323, 324,
354(B), 504, 506, 341 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN CRIME
NO.66/ 2017 THE ORDER SHEET MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, T HE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners challenging the initiation of the proceedings in old C.C.No.118/2018 and new C.C.No.379/2019, presently it is pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, arose in Crime No.66/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506, 341 :3: r/w 34 of IPC and seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against them in the aforesaid new C.C.No.379/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State, so also learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Factual matrix of the petition are as under:
Respondent No.2 namely Smt.Hosuramma is the mother-in-law of accused No.1-Nagaraj;
Petitioner No.3 is the sister of accused No.1- Nagaraj and petitioner No.4 is the neighbour of accused No.1. The allegation made in the complaint that the complainant's daughter namely Laxmidevi was given in marriage with accused-Nagaraj, subsequent to her marriage with him, his parents and his sisters looked after well for few days. But subsequently :4: started to give harassment to her inclusive of petitioner No.4, who being the neighbour of accused No.1. The complainant-Hosuramma, filed a complaint before the respondent-police against accused No.1, who is her son-in-law.
Based upon her complaint, case in Crime No.366/2019 came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. Subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused, the Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.118/2018.
4. Sri Amare Gouda, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the averments made in the complaint and so also the allegations made against the accused in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer in C.C.No.118/2018. He submits that on 17.06.2017 at around 10.00 a.m. when the :5: complainant-Hosuramma and others went to leave her daughter-Laxmidevi in the house of her husband-Nagaraj, the mother-in-law of Laxmidevi restrained them. In the meanwhile, her son-in-law Nagaraj arraigned as accused No.1 came and compressed the neck of Laxmidevi and assaulted on her private part. When the complainant asked about to do the acts by her son-in-law accused-Nagaraj, on her daughter that he pulled her saree and also abused her in filthy language and assaulted on her right hand and chest as well as stomach with means of iron rod. In the meanwhile of an incident presented by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 arraigned as accused, they were also pulled and pushed the complainant-Hosuramma and so also assaulted her and her daughter Laxmidevi. Petitioner No.3 who is said to be father-in-law of her daughter, he had also pulled her saree.
:6:
5. Whereas, the counsel who has placed certified copies of the FIR in Crime No.66/2017 as Annexure-C and certified copies of the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused in C.C.No.118/2018 as Annexure-D. These documents have been produced by the learned counsel for the purpose to appraise that there is no allection made to constitute the offences against the accused. But the complaint came to be registered by the complainant-Hosuramma, who is none other than the mother-in-law of accused No.1 with a mala fide intention and in the ulterior motive in order to wreck vengeance and also give harassment to the accused persons. The quarrel took on the same day, but the accused-petitioners have caused simple injuries, but accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime has lodged the complaint on the same day and the complainant in the :7: aforesaid crime lodged by respondent No.2- Hosuramma is delay of one day. That itself indicates that the complainant has filed a complaint before the respondent-police in order to register the crime against the accused by implicating them in the alleged crime that they had picked up quarrel with her in her presence. Since from the marriage of Laxmidevi, both parties have developed ill-will and several cases were registered against both the parties. Petitioner No.4 being neighbour who is also roped in the alleged crime, wherein he come forwarded to quell the incident took in between the parties. Despite of it, the very accused was also implicated in the charge sheet levelled against them. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. be exercised for quashment of the entire proceedings levelled against them, who are required to face the trial and also prevent the abuse of process of the Court and otherwise to :8: say to secure the ends of justice. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners and seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against the accused in old C.C.No.118/2018 and new C.C.No.379/2019.
6. Learned counsel namely Sri Srinivas B. Naik for respondent No.2 has taken me through the averments made in the complaint and so also reflection made in the FIR recorded by the Police and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.118/2018. He submits that the complainant's daughter namely Laxmidevi was given in marriage to the accused-Nagaraj. That accused No.1-Nagaraj filed a complaint against the complainant- respondent No.2 relating to the case in Crime No.45/2017 for the offences punishable under :9: Sections 109, 323, 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. The injured referred to VIMS Hospital, Ballari in order to provide treatment. Accordingly, took treatment and the Doctor has issued Wound Certificate stands in the name of accused No.1. In the complaint, made an allegation against accused No.1-Nagaraj that her daughter namely Laxmidevi was given in marriage to that accused-Nagaraj. Subsequent to her marriage, she had been to her husband's house and therein she led marital life only for few days. But the accused person such as Nagaraj and his parents, sisters and brothers of that accused had tormenting complainant's daughter. Therefore, the panchayaths were constituted, but went in vain. Therefore, on 17.06.2017 at around 10.00 a.m. the complainant-Hosuramma and others went to the house of Nagaraj. At that time, the accused-Nagaraj picked up quarrel with the : 10 : complainant and also assaulted on her and so also assaulted her daughter in their presence. Therefore, the case in Crime No.45/2017 came to be registered and the counter case in Crime No.66/2017 relating to the case in C.C.No.118/2018 came to be registered and thereafter the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, the accused are required to face trial, as there are prima facie materials against the accused in committing the alleged offences and also given physical as well as mental harassment to the complainant's daughter. As there is ill-will developed in between the complainant- Hosuramma and her son-in-law Nagaraj and other accused, several cases were registered against both parties. Though petitioner No.4- Mallikarjun is a neighbour being arraigned as accused, he had come forwarded to quell the incident took in between the parties. Despite of : 11 : it, the very accused was also implicated in the charge sheet levelled against them. Therefore, the accused are required to face the trial. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and seeking for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioners-accused.
7. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 has also adopted the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by these petitioners.
8. It is in this context of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners and so also the counter made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State, it is relevant to refer the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to exercise inherent jurisdiction. It is embark : 12 : upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the allegations are not sustainable. The proposition finds support from the judgment of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Mohd.Sharful Haque and another. This judgment has been referred in Criminal Appeal No.1082/2019 in the case of Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another dated 31.07.2019. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, the same is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of : 13 : justice. In this judgment, referred the case of S.W.Palanitkar and others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2002) 1 SCC
241. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. But at the same time, if the basic ingredients of the offence alleged are altogether absent, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled principles of law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open to the High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. It is relevant to refer the judgment that M.A.A. Aannamali vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2010(8) SCC 524; Sharda Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1977 SC 1754 and : 14 : Smt.Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947. The inherent power under Section 482 is to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. Reference may be made to Dharampal and others vs. Smt.Ramshri and others. In rejecting the application, the High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, where this Court laid down the following guidelines for exercise of power under Section 482.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any : 15 : offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the
first information report and
other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable : 16 : offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the : 17 : grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with a mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
9. The FIR has been recorded based upon the complaint filed by the complainant. But in the instant case, the complainant- Hosuramma, who is no other than the mother- in-law of the accused-Nagaraj, that Nagaraj who had given physical as well as mental harassment to her daughter-Laxmidevi. Said Laxmidevi had given a complaint before the respondent-police alleging that her husband and other accused had given physical as well as mental harassment and so also insisting her : 18 : to bring additional dowry despite of receipt of considerable dowry during her marriage. The same has been revealed in Crime No.163/2017 relating to the case in C.C.No.399/2018. The power to quash the proceedings is generally exercised when there is no material to proceed against the petitioners being arraigned as accused. Even if the allegations in the complaint are prima facie accepted as true, the ingredients of offences in C.C.No.379/2019 are contrary and the same has been revealed in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082/2019 dated 31.07.2019 in detail addressed the issue. Merely because the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution as where the accused is required to face trial for the offences levelled against the accused in C.C.No.118/2018 arose in Crime No.66/2017, : 19 : which presently new C.C.No.379/2019 is pending on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari.
10. The police report or otherwise to stay the investigation report, it is a result of investigation done by the Investigating Officer under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., that investigation report is a conclusion that an Investigating Officer draws on the basis of material collected during investigation and such conclusion can only form the base of a competent court to proceed with the case against the accused for trial. But in the instant case, Laxmidevi who is no other than the wife of accused No.1-Nagaraj has filed complaint against him and others and based upon her complaint crime came to be registered and proceeded with the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet. Whereas, the accused- : 20 : Nagaraj who assaulted the complainant- Hosuramma, who is no other than the mother- in-law of that accused-Nagaraj and also she being the mother of Laxmidevi. Therefore, the said crime which is registered by the respondent-police and proceeded with the case for investigation and during investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and also drew mahazar for the alleged offences. But the said statement of witnesses and so also the materials in which collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation requires to be tested by entering the witnesses into the box and also subjected to cross-examination. But in this petition seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.379/2019 initiated against the accused, but in a peculiar circumstances of the case and so also the : 21 : guidelines issued in a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also referred supra, it is said that there are no justifiable grounds as urged by the petitioners being arraigned as accused. Therefore, it is said that the petition is deserve to be rejected.
11. Therefore, it is said that there are no substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused seeking intervention of the case in C.C.No.118/2018 arose out of Crime No.66/2017 and so also seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings levelled against the accused.
In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. Consequently, the petitioners-accused are required to face the trial in Crime No.66/2017 arose in new : 22 : C.C.No.379/2019, which is pending on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ballari.
However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Trial Court in C.C.No.379/2019 is directed to expedite the case for disposal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE CL K