Karnataka High Court
Smt.Meghana @ Pallavi W/O Maruti Nayak vs The State By Spp on 6 June, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101469 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SMT. MEGHANA @PALLAVI W/O. MARUTI NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ATTIKATTI, TQ: MUNDARAGI,
C/O P R RATHOD, 1ST CROSS,
SHIVAPETE, RON.
DIST: GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
REPRESENTED BY RON POLICE.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.06.09
15:19:36 -0700
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2018 PASSED BY THE DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG AND CONSEQUENTLY BE TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RON IN C.C.NO.163/2018
(P.C.NO.01/2016) AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE
PROTEST PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.163/2018 (P.C.NO.1/2016).
-2-
CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"To allow the above petition and to set aside the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Dist. & Sessions Judge, Gadag and consequently be to set aside the order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ron in C.C.No.163/2018 (P.C.No.01/2016) and consequently to allow the protest petition filed by the petitioner in C.C.No.163/2018 (P.C.No.1/2016)."
3. A private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the petitioner being the legally wedded wife of first accused - Maruti and other accused persons are the relatives of first accused. After marriage, petitioner joined the matrimonial home and on account of -3- CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019 some differences, there was a physical and mental harassment imparted to the petitioner resulting in petitioner staying away from matrimonial home and lodging the complaint.
4. After the matter was referred to Ron police, a case came to be registered in Crime No.79/2016 on 26.02.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 120B, 504, 506, 324 read with 149 of IPC. Police after thorough investigation found that the allegations made in the complaint are far from truth and as such they have filed charge sheet giving up offence under Section 495 of IPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, a protest petition came to be filed by the complainant and the matter was taken up for further consideration. Since the material on record was not placed properly to attract the offence under Section 495 of IPC, the learned Magistrate after considering the necessary material on record and appreciating the contents of the protest petition and other -4- CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019 materials on record, rejected the protest petition by order dated 03.03.2018 and registered criminal case insofar as other offences are concerned.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 03.03.2018 rejecting the protest petition insofar as offence under Section 495 of IPC, the complainant filed a revision petition before the District Court, Gadag in Crl.R.P.No.15/2018.
7. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties by order dated 03.07.2018 rejected the revision petition confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
8. Sri Shivakumar S.Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that the learned Magistrate and learned District Judge have erred in not considering the protest petition insofar as the police failing to invoke -5- CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019 Section 495 IPC in the case resulting in miscarriage of just and sought for quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 03.03.2018 and the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 03.07.2018 by allowing the petition.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grounds urged in the petition by contending that the Investigation Officer after thorough investigation, found that no ingredients are made out from the material collected during investigation to invoke offence U/sec.495 IPC and thereafter, a protest petition came to be filed by the defacto complainant for not invoking Section 495 IPC by the investigation agency. The learned Magistrate after considering the protest petition in detail has noted that the material on record does not warrant invoking Section 495 IPC and therefore, rightly rejected the protest petition which was also confirmed by the learned District Judge and sought for dismissal of the petition.
-6-CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019
10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that marriage of the petitioner with the 1st accused is not in dispute. So also filing of a private complaint is not in dispute. Said private complaint was referred to the Ron Police for investigation U/sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet against two accused persons U/sec.498A, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and dropped 15 other accused persons.
12. Being aggrieved by the filing of charge sheet only against two persons, a protest petition came to be filed and the defacto complainant sought for an order to invoke Section 495 IPC.
13. The protest petition was considered by the learned Magistrate in its proper perspective and passed an order on 03.03.2018 rejecting the protest petition. -7- CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019
14. Thereafterwards, the petitioner approached the District Court in revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.15/2018.
15. Learned District Judge after hearing the parties in detail, by a considered order, found that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 03.03.2018 rejecting the protest petition is just and proper and dismissed the revision petition.
16. This Court considered the grounds urged in the petition in detail to find out whether there requires any interference U/sec.482 Cr.P.C. insofar as the prayer of the petitioner is concerned.
17. On such reconsideration of the material on record, this Court is convinced that the investigation agency is right in filing the charge sheet only against the two persons and dropping the fifteen other accused persons in view of the fact that there is only omnibus allegations leveled against the relatives of the husband. -8- CRL.P No. 101469 of 2019
18. Further, the learned trial Magistrate and the learned District Judge have also bestowed their best attention to the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner in police failing to invoke the offence under Section 495 IPC and found that police was right in filing charge sheet only against two persons.
19. Therefore, with the limited powers of this Court U/sec.482 Cr.P.C. in a matter of this nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out muchless good grounds to accept the prayer of the petitioner which would require further consideration. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER Admission declined. Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SH,CLK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21