Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma vs State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 308 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 308 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. LALITHA KUMARI
D/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
3. KAMALAMMA
D/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
4. HONNAPPA
S/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
5. ANANDA
Digitally signed S/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH
by PADMAVATHI
BK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 6. KALAVATHI
W/O HONNPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6
RESIDING AT MARALURU
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU - 572 105.
-2-
CRL.P No. 308 of 2020
7. RANGANATHA
S/O MOOGA BYATANNA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT JAVARANAYAKANAPALYA VILLAGE
DASENAHALLI MAJARE
MEDIGESHI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 175.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION
TUMAKURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 01.
2. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA
MARALURU, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU
KARNATAKA - 572 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.80/2018 BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU ON
30.10.2019 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISCHARGE THEM
OF OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 324, 427, 506
-3-
CRL.P No. 308 of 2020
R/W 149 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.748/2017 DATED 06.09.2018 NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question order dated 30th October, 2019 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2018, whereby, the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, affirmed the order dated 6th September, 2018 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru, in C.C.No.748 of 2017, rejecting the application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 324, 427, 506 r/w. 149 of the IPC.
2. Heard Smt. K.Abhinaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. -4- CRL.P No. 308 of 2020
3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant / 2nd respondent had received 23 guntas of landed property from her late husband in Sy.No.37/4 B1, out of 1 acre and 07 guntas, where she had constructed a house in the said property and was residing there with her children.
It is the case of the complainant that on 10-09- 2016, at around 1 p.m. petitioner Nos.1 to 7 came near the house, picked up a fight with the complainant during which time, the 4th petitioner took huge stone and threw on the power tiller that was parked in front of the complainant's house and that, when CWs-2 and 3 questioned the petitioners as to why they were behaving like that, they further created ruckus and damaged chairs and tables of the hotel which was constructed in the said land. On 15-09-2016, after five days of the said incident which happened on 10.09.2016, a complaint comes to be -5- CRL.P No. 308 of 2020 registered against the petitioners in Crime No.81 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 323, 324, 427,.506 and 149 of the IPC. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C.No.748 of 2017.
4. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners filed discharge application before the learned Magistrate seeking their discharge from the array of accused in C.C.No.748 of 2017. This came to be dismissed by an order of the learned Magistrate on 06.09.2018. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2018, before learned Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 30th October 2019, dismissed the revision petition. It is these orders that are called in question before this Court with a consequential relief of their discharge from the proceedings. -6- CRL.P No. 308 of 2020
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complainant and the petitioners are members of the same family and a suit for partition and separate possession with regard to the suit schedule properties is pending between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent in O.S.No.154 of 2006. Pressure was brought in against the petitioners for withdrawal of the suit and the petitioners did not accede to the request of the complainant and her children to withdraw the said suit. It is on that ground, the problem arose on a particular day i.e., 10.09.2016. The learned counsel would submit that the entire episode narrated by the complainant is all false as who have suffered and who have been beaten are the petitioners by the complainant and her sons. The 1st petitioner had in fact been admitted to the District Hospital, Tumkuru, as she was assaulted by the 2nd respondent and her children. There is no wound certificate produced by the complainant or collected during the -7- CRL.P No. 308 of 2020 investigation that would demonstrate that the complainant was in fact assaulted.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would however seek to refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners are prima facie guilty of the offences and have to come out clean in the trial.
7. The 2nd respondent complainant dies during the pendency of these proceedings.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the complainant belong to the same family and have generated a civil dispute between themselves by filing a suit for partition. The said suit in O.S.No.154 of 2006, is -8- CRL.P No. 308 of 2020 pending consideration before the concerned Court. The alleged incident has happened on 10-09-2016. The allegation is that, the petitioners have assaulted the complainant and her children. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the crime that is registered by the complainant on 15-09-2016, which reads as follows:
"gÀªÀjUÉ, dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgÀªÀjUÉ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¯ÉÃ. §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ 65 ªÀµÀðzÀ PÀÄgÀħ d£ÁAUÀzÀ UÀAUÀªÀÄä DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ §gɹPÉÆlÖ zÀÆgÀÄ.
K£ÉAzÀgÉ ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.37/4 © 1 gÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà£À (¯ÉÃ) ¨sÁUÀPÌÉ 1 JPÀgÉ 7 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÉÊQ 23 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §A¢zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖPÆ É AqÀÄ fêÀ£À £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÝÉ ÃªÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ 10.09.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1 WÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä zÉÆqÀØ¥àÀ ¯Éà gÁªÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà£À ºÉAqÀw ®PÀëöäªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ®°vÀ, PÀªÄÀ ®ªÀÄä UÀAqÀĪÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ºÉÆ£ÀߥÀà, D£ÀAzÀ (D£ÉAiÀÄ¥Àà) ºÉÆ£ÀߥÀà£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ PÀ¯ÁªÀw D£ÉAiÀÄ¥Àà£À ¨ÁªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À£ÁzÀ gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ J¯ÁègÄÀ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ KPÁKQ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¤AwzÀÝ ¥ÀªÀgï mÉ®ègï ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆ£ÀߥÀà ¸ÉÊeï PÀ®è£ÄÀ ß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ JwÛºÁQ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlĪÀiÁrzÀÄÝ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÉƸÉAiÀiÁzÀ «ÄãÁPÀëªÄÀ ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ gÁd -9- CRL.P No. 308 of 2020 ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ KPÁKQ F jÃw KPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃgÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ ®°vÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀÄjvÀÄ K£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛÃgÀ PÁA¥ËAqï UÉÆÃqÉ ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. DUÀ eÉÆÃgÁV QgÀÄaPÉÆAqɪÅÀ . ®°vÀ EªÀgÄÀ eÉÆÃgÁV QgÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉ ZÉ£ÁßV ºÉÆqɬÄj K£ÁzÀgÀÄ DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï PÉÆÃmïð£À°è £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÛÉÃ£É ºÉzÀgÀ¨ÉÃr JAzÀÄ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÝÀ AvÉ PÀªÄÀ ®ªÀÄä vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ PÀÆzÀ®£ÀÄß J¼ÉzÁr PÁ°¤AzÀ UÀAUÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «ÄãÁPÀëªÀÄäUÉ MzÀݼÀÄ. PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®°vÀªÄÀ ä «ÄãÁPÀëªÄÀ ä¼À£ÄÀ ß PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÄÀ . ®°vÀªÀÄä ºÉÆ£ÀߥÀà ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ©¢ÝzÀÝ zÉÆuÉÚ¬ÄAzÀ gÁd£À PÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÀÄ. CµÀÖgÀ°è UÀ¯ÁmÉ ±À§Þ PÉý £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è EzÀÝ ¨Á§Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀPÌÀ zÀ CAUÀr ¥ÉèäAUï «ÄµÀ£Àß°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï §AzÀÄ KPÉ F jÃw CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛ¢ÝÃgÉAzÀÄ PÉý CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉÆAqÀÄ DUÀ ºÉÆ£ÀߥÀà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D£ÉAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÉÆÃmɯï PÁA¥ÉÆÃAqÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÁgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄzÀÝ°¬ÄAzÀ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÄÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆ£ÀߥÀà£À PÉÊ°zÀÝ zÉÆuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©¸ÁrzÀ F ¢£À ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ©nÖzÉÝÃ£É ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á§Ä ¨ÁgÀzÉ EzÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÉ ªÅÀ . ºÉÃVzÀÝgÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAV ¯ÁAiÀÄgï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è UÉ®ÄèªÅÀ zÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÄÀ . F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ 7 d£ÀgÆ À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d«ÄäUÉ CPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁr ºÉÆÃmɯï£À°ègÀĪÀ bÉÃgÀÄ mÉç¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀªÀgï læ®ègï mÁæPÀÖgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀĪÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ®PÀë ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ ªÀ¸ÄÀ ÛUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀgÄÀ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹zÀgÀÄ F 7 d£ÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÄÀ ä Hj£À »jAiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ
- 10 -CRL.P No. 308 of 2020
§AzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ CtÚ vÀªÄÀ äA¢gÀÄ E°è DVgÀĪÀ £ÀµÀÖªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀjAzÀ PÀnÖ¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÁzÀgÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃgÀ°®è CzÀjAzÁV 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀqÀªÁV oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÝÉ ÃªÉ.
EAw «zsÉÃAiÀÄ"
The crime is registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 149 of the IPC. The police after investigation have also filed a charge sheet in the matter. Both the complaint and the charge sheet would indicate that an incident of assault had happened on 10-09-2016 and the complainant was injured. For demonstration of injury of the complainant, there is no wound certificate appended to the petition or collected by the police during investigation.
10. On other hand, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would sound acceptance as the 1st petitioner was admitted to the District Hospital on injuries sustained owing to assault and petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were also treated as out-patients at the District Hospital on 10-09-2016. The documents
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 308 of 2020 would show that though injuries were simple in nature, but were sustained during the squabble and treatment was taken on the same day. But, the impugned complaint by the 2nd respondent/complainant is registered on 15-09- 2016 after 6 days of the incident. The complaint of the petitioners against the complainant is registered on 20-09- 2016. It is on this ground the learned High Court Government Pleader contends that there is a delay in registration of the complaint by the petitioners and therefore, the complaint of the petitioners is an afterthought.
11. For offences punishable under Sections 323 or 324 of the IPC sustaining of injury is imperative as Section 324 of the IPC deals with causing grievous hurt by usage of deadly weapon and there should be some semblance of injury sustained. It is the petitioners who have produced documents to demonstrate that in fact, they were injured in the incident and have registered the complaint against
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 308 of 2020 the complainant and have also demonstrated by producing documents to show that the complaint was not initially accepted for the matter being purely civil in nature and only after the complainant had filed the complaint on 15.09.2016, the complaint of the petitioners was accepted by the police on 20-06-2016. Finding no allegation that would touch upon the offence punishable under Section 323 or 324 of the IPC, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The Order dated 30th October, 2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2018 and order dated 6th September, 2018 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru in C.C.No.748 of 2017 are quashed.
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 308 of 2020
(iii) The application filed by the petitioners in C.C.No.748 of 2017 before the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Tumkuru seeking their discharge from the proceedings, is allowed.
(iv) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence any other proceedings of the parties before the authorities.
Sd/-
JUDGE NVJ CT: mj