Manish Kumar Dubey vs State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2014

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manish Kumar Dubey vs State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2014

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

                           -1-



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

                    CRL.P.No.1694/2014
BETWEEN

MANISH KUMAR DUBEY,
S/O SHRIKANTH KUMAR DUBEY,
AGED 24 YEARS,
R/AT No.15, 2ND FLOOR,
DOOR No.202,
MUNESWARA BLOCK,
DEVINAGAR, NAGASHETTYHALLI,
BANGALORE-94.                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADV.,)

AND :

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA,
        BY KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION,
        REP. BY S.P.P,
        BANGLORE-01.

2.      KALPANA.K.S,
        AGED 28 YEARS,
        TECHNICAL SUPPORT ENGINEER,
        R/AT No.3377, 4TH CROSS,
        GAYATHRINAGAR,
        NEAR VIVEKANANDA LAW COLLEGE,
        BANGALORE-21.               ... RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP., FOR R1)
                                  -2-



     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.
NO.48/2014 OF KODIGEHALLI P.S., REGISTERED AGAINST
HIM FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 376 AND 420 OF
IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

     THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Accused in Crime No.48/2014 registered by 1st respondent - Kodigehalli Police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC within the jurisdiction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of F.I.R., in the said crime.

2. Admittedly, the proceeding is still at the stage of investigation. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would show that the complaint, which is at document No.2 page No.15, would indicate that there is no offence committed by the petitioner so as to attract the provisions of Section 376 and 420 of IPC., and it is clear from the -3- contents of the complaint that the petitioner herein and complainant were consciously living together and with consent, they have indulged in the act of physical intimacy and the same cannot be considered as an offence under Section 376 IPC. While arguing for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.48/2014, it is also stated that the complainant - 2nd respondent herein, who is present before Court, has agreed to withdraw the complaint.

3. The Apex Court in the matter of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ((2012) 10 SCC

303) in the head note, it is stated as under:-

"Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim`s family and offender have settled the dispute -4-

- Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. "

Though this Court is inclined to accept the submission of the 2nd respondent - complainant for quashing of the proceedings, in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), the same cannot be accepted. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate before whom, FIR., is pending investigation for enlarging him on bail and also co-operate with the Police in the investigation to see that the report is filed immediately either taking cognizance or otherwise depending on the material available on record.

With the aforesaid observations, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE sma

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court