Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Neha Thakur vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:34320
CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1706 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MRS. NEHA THAKUR
W/O. HARISINGH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.8,
SAPTHAGIRI NIWAS,
FLAT NO.106, S.B., A.R.LAYOUT,
J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE- 560 078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KESHAVA KUMAR B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY,
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally BANGALORE.
signed by
SUMA 2. MRS. MAMATHA SINGH
Location:
HIGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
COURT OF W/O HARI RAM SINGH,
KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT NO.564, 14TH CROSS,
V.P.NAGAR, BEGUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3926/2017, PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:34320
CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018
CHIEF JUDICIAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CJM) RURAL
DISTRICT AT BANGALORE, UNDER SECTION 504 AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against her by respondent No.1 in C.C.No.3926/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth be referred to as 'IPC' for short), pending trial before the Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. The respondent No.2 furnished an information in writing to the respondent No.1 on 14.05.2016, that a maid was employed by her from November, 2015 and that she was absconding from 28.03.2016. She alleged that her maid had stolen the mobile phone which had relevant evidence of an accused in Spl.C.No.31/2016 as well as the call record details of her and her in-laws which were crucial to the case in Spl.C.No.31/2016. She also alleged that her maid had also stolen the documents relating to the ancestral property at Bihar belonging to her husband as well as her marriage certificate. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:34320 CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018 She claimed that her maid had spiked the food consumed by her. She further alleged that her maid had stolen their used clothes without their notice and left behind some mysterious powder, tobacco sachets in the kitchen. She alleged that the petitioner who was the sister-in-law of the accused in Spl.C.No.31/2016 conspired to kill her and her family members through the help of the maid. She claimed that she had received threatening messages from the petitioner and that the maid had deleted all those messages from her mobile. She therefore requested that action be initiated against the petitioner as well maid servant for conspiring to kill her, and to help the accused in Spl.C.No.31/2016 and his family members to be acquitted of the charges.
3. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.264/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 381, 506, r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation.
4. Respondent No.1 seized the samples of products that were in the kitchen of respondent No.2 and also secured blood and urine samples of respondent No.2 and subjected the same for forensic examination. The forensic report disclosed -4- NC: 2023:KHC:34320 CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018 that there was no residual of any poison or poisonous substance.
5. Respondent No.1 recorded the statement of husband of respondent No.2, who claimed that his wife/respondent No.2 was receiving threatening messages on her mobile phone. Respondent No.1 also recorded the statement of the minor son of respondent No.2, who also claimed that his mother was receiving threatening messages on her mobile phone. Based on this, respondent No.1 concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.3926/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.
6. The summary of the charge sheet discloses that the daughter of respondent No.2 was sexually abused by the nephew of her husband, in respect of which, a case in Spl.C.No.31/2016 was registered under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It was further alleged that the petitioner was continuously calling the respondent No.2 to ensure that accused in Spl.C.No.31/2016 is acquitted and in respect of which there were heated -5- NC: 2023:KHC:34320 CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018 conversations between petitioner and husband of respondent No.2.
7. Respondent No.1 seems to have secured the WhatsApp conversation as well as the call record details of the petitioner and respondent No.2. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.3926/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and issued process. The petitioner being aggrieved by the prosecution launched against her, has filed this petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 had initially lodged a complaint alleging that maid employed by her had stolen mobile phone containing the WhatsApp conversation between petitioner and respondent No.2 concerning accused in Spl.C.No.31/2016 and that she had deleted all those messages. It is also alleged that the maid had also stolen the marriage certificate and document of title of a property of her husband. She also alleged that the maid had spiked the food consumed by respondent No.2 and attempted to kill respondent No.2. She also alleged that petitioner and her relatives were threatening her to ensure that accused in -6- NC: 2023:KHC:34320 CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018 Spl.C.No.31/2016 is released. He contends that the forensic report ruled out the role of the maid and the respondent No.1 rightly did so in not naming her as an accused. He therefore contended that what remained was only the alleged threatening messages by petitioner to respondent No.2. He submitted that the WhatsApp communication between petitioner and respondent No.2 which is secured by respondent No.1 does not disclose any threatening messages constituting an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. He therefore, contends that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law and the trial court committed an error in not noticing the fact that there was no incriminating material to take cognizance of offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. He therefore, prays that having regard to the relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2, the proceedings may be closed.
9. Respondent No.2 though served with the notice has remained absent.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the statement of husband of respondent No.2 was -7- NC: 2023:KHC:34320 CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018 recorded, wherein he had stated that respondent No.2 was receiving threatening messages that if she did not help the accused in Spl.C.No.31/2016 to be discharged, they would do away with her life. He submitted that the victim in Spl.C.No.31/2016 is the daughter of respondent No.2 and therefore, it is quite possible that the petitioner could have called the respondent No.2 and could have compelled her to ensure that the accused in Spl.C.No.31/2016 is acquitted. He further contended that respondent No.1 has extracted the call record details exchanged between petitioner and respondent No.2 which discloses several calls between them. Therefore, he claimed that it is the petitioner who had threatened the respondent No.2 of her life and could have criminally intimidated her.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
12. The record discloses that the daughter of the respondent No.2 was a victim of an alleged crime in Spl.C.No.31/2016. The accused in the said case was the son of -8- NC: 2023:KHC:34320 CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018 sister-in-law of the petitioner. The investigation in the said case was completed and charge sheet was also filed in Spl.C.No.31/2016. It is therefore, not unnatural that the petitioner could have spoken with respondent No.2 over phone for amicably resolving the issue.
13. However, except the statement of husband of respondent No.2, no other material is collected by the prosecution which is sufficient enough to attract the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The forensic report does not indicate the presence of any poison and therefore, the alleged conspiracy to kill respondent No.2 through the maid employed by her is palpably false and is purely an imagination of the respondent No.2. Since the WhatsApp messages which are sourced by respondent No.1 do not indicate any threat or any criminal intimidation by petitioner to respondent No.2, an offence under Section 506 of IPC is not made out and therefore, there is no sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation of the respondent No.2.
In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioner in -9- NC: 2023:KHC:34320 CRL.P No. 1706 of 2018 C.C.No.3926/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 pending trial before the Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru Rural District, Bengaluru is quashed.
Before parting, the petitioner is directed not to compel or coerce or threaten or intimidate any witness in Spl.C.No.31/2016 and allow the process of law to take its course.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23