Karnataka High Court
Smt Ashalatha vs Smt.Keerthana P Shetty on 11 December, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. Smt. Ashalatha
W/o Shivaprasad
Aged about 57 years
2. Sri Shivaprasad @ Shivaprasad Murthy
S/o Late Shivanna
Aged about 67 years
Both are residing at
No.249, 1st Main
4th Block, Near Ganesh Temple
Ramakrishna Nagara
Nandini Layout
Bengaluru - 560 096.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Sudharshan L, Advocate)
AND
1. Smt. Keerthana P Shetty
W/o Mallikarjun Parvesh
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.80, 3rd floor
4th Cross, Ramakrishna Nagar
Nandini Layout
Bengaluru - 560 096.
:2:
2. State by Halasuru Gate
Women Police Station
Bengaluru
Represented by SPP
highCourt
Bangalore - 560 001.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav - HCGP for R-2
Sri Madhav Kashyap, Advocate for
Sri P. Prasanna Kumar - Advocate for R-1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 506(B) of IPC and
Sec.4 of D.P. Act in C.C.No.24203/2015 on the file of
Halasurgate Women Police Station, Bengaluru and
pending on the file of VI-ACMM, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506(B) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.24203/2015 which is pending on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru.
:3:
2. Heard Sri Sudarshan.L, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for second respondent and Sri Madhav Kashyap representing Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 who are physically present before the Court.
3. It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that Smt.Keerthana Shetty initiated the complaint against accused No.1 - Mallikarjun Parvesh who is her husband and also against accused Nos.2 and 3 who are her in-laws alleging that the accused have subjected her physically as well as mental harassment and also demanded dowry. Since from the date of the marriage, her husband had given some sort of harassment to her. Due to the filing of the complaint by her, the Ulsoorgate Police registered the case in Crime No.19/2015 by recording FIR and thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.24203/2015 for the aforesaid offences.
4. The first respondent has filed a case in C.Mis.147/2015 before the II CMM, Bengaluru under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic :4: Violence Act, 2005. The said case was referred to Mediation Centre and on 18.11.2015 accused No.1 and respondent No.1 filed a joint memo of compromise. The case in C.Misc.No.147/2015 came to be dismissed recording the settlement between the parties. The copy of the order relating to dismissal of the said petition is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the purpose of reference in this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the allegations made against Accused No.1 who is her husband and so also, petitioners 1 and 2 herein, stating that the allegations in the entire complaint are false and baseless and far from iota of truth and made with the malafide intention to defame the reputation of the petitioners. There are no specific ingredients made against these petitioners that they were also abusing her in filthy language and so also, extended some sort of physical as well as mental harassment. These petitioners being old aged persons have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. Therefore, it needs intervention by this Court under :5: Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24203/2015.
6. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is limited only to the extent of assisting to the learned HCGP for respondent No.2 - State. It is submitted that the case in Crime No.19/2015 came to be registered by the Ulsoorgate Women Police based upon the complaint filed by the complainant that she had meted out physical as well as mental harassment at the hands of the accused persons. When once the crime came to be registered and the charge sheet has been laid by the investigating agency, that the materials secured by the IO requires to be tested before the trial Court by adducing the evidence on the part of the prosecution. But at this stage, it does not arise for consideration for intervention of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. mere because the case in C.Misc.147/2015 registered by the complainant came to be settled at Mediation centre. On this premise, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
:6:
7. It is in this context it is relevant to refer the concept and scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It has been dealt in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Dept. of Home and Another reported in AIR 2019 SC 210, and also in many number of judgments referred relating to quashing of FIR u/s.482 of Cr.PC., restricting exercise of power of court to prevent abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of FIR - High Court can exercise jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.PC., even if charge sheet is filed during pendency of application. In this judgment, the decision rendered in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd., & others reported in 2006(6) SCC 736, the court observed that "13. Xx any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged ....." Further, he court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. :7:
8. In the said reliance, the case of State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 held as under:
"In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's has inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice."
9. In the instant case, respondent No.1 - Keerthana Shetty is none other than the daughter-in-law of the :8: petitioners herein and she has instituted the criminal prosecution against her husband Mallikarjun Parvesh and these petitioners. Naturally it is a family dispute emerged in between the spouses. But in the instant case, the petitioners being the in-laws of the first respondent have been roped in for the aforesaid allegations. It is relevant to state that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR registered by the respondent police or even the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same does not disclose the commission of offence and make out a case against the petitioners herein. The criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with 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. But in the instant case, the petitioners being the in-laws of the complainant, the allegations made in the FIR, it cannot be specifically stated that whether these petitioners said to have been given physical as well as mental harassment to the complainant. Therefore, it is said that there are no specific ingredients to constitute the :9: offences lugged against these petitioners. Mere because the investigating agency has investigated the case and laid the charge sheet, but Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is a salutary provision. Therefore, no hesitation in quashing the FIR and even the charge sheet laid by the second respondent against these petitioners who are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3.
In terms of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24203/2015 which is pending before the VI ACMM, Bengaluru against these petitioners are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB