Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nirmala W/O. Sharanappa Benaki vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102224 OF 2021 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NIRMALA
W/O. SHARANAPPA BENAKAL,
AGE 39 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O ANNADANESHWARANAGARA
TQ MUNDARAGI
DIST GADAG-582116
2. SRI. NINGAPPA
S/O. BHIMMAPPA (DAMBAL) UPPAR
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC NIL,
R/O ANNADANESHWARANAGARA
TQ MUNDARAGI
DIST GADAG-582116
3. SMT. PARAVVA W/O.NINGPAPA UPPAR
AGE 56 YEARS
OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK
Digitally signed
R/O ANNADANESHWARANAGARA
by V N BADIGER
VN Location: TQ MUNDARAGI
DHARWAD
BADIGER Date:
2022.04.09
DIST GADAG-582116
14:15:53 +0530
4. SRI RAMANNA S/O. BASAPPA UPPAR
AGE 50 YERAS, OCC TEACHER
R/O.BHOMMRADDI PLOT
TQ MUNDARAGI
DIST GADAG-582116
-2-
CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021
5. SMT. SUJATHA W/O RAMANNA UPPAR
AGE 43 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BHOOMRADDI PLOT
TQ MUNDARAGI
DIST GADAG-582116
6. SRI. SURESH S/O. NINGAPPA UPPAR
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O ANNADANESHWARANAGARA
TQ MUNDARAGI
DIST GADAG-582116
7. SMT VIJAYLAXMI WO. SURESH UPPAR
AGE 40 YEARS
OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O ANNADANESHWARANAGARA
TQ MUNDARAGI
DIST GADAG-582116
8. SRI. RAMESH S/O HANUMAPPA UPPAR
AGE 37 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O DAMABAL
TQ AND DIST GADAG-582116
9. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O.BASAPPA KAVALUR
AGE 22 YEARS, OCC STUDENT
R/O SOMPUR, TQ.KUKNURU,
PRESENTLY R/AT. MUNDARAGI-582116.
10. SRI. ASHOK S/O. BANNEPPA GADAD
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC TEACHER
R/O NO 161, 11TH MAIN
MANJUNATHNAGAR,
DIST BANGALORE-10
-3-
CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021
11. SM. PADAMAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA VADDATTI
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. HIREVADDARAHATTI, TQ.MUNDARGI,
DIST.GADAG-582116.
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
KUKANOOR POLICE STATION
KUKANNOR DIST KOPPAL-583232,
REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SMT GANGAMMA W/O. SIDDAPPA BENAKAL
AGE 64 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O.TALAKAL, TQ KUKANOOR
DIST KOPPAL-583232
NOTE- CAUSE TITLE AS PER CHARGE SHEET.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCAE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR IN NO.30/2019 DATED
04.03.2019 REGISTERED BY P.S.I. KUKANOOR P.S. AND
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.72/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YELBURGA
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 448, 323, 506
R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021
ORDER
A charge sheet is filed against the petitioners- accused alleging that, on 24.02.2019 at about 10.05 a.m., the accused by forming into an unlawful assembly criminally trespassed into the house belonging to the second respondent and when she enquired as to why they had come, the petitioners-accused without heeding to her words, pushed her, and the grand children of complainant were taken away by the petitioner No.1, who is the mother of the said children, and other relatives. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 504 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioners-accused. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any corroborative material, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is without any substance. Hence, the impugned -5- CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021 proceeding pending against the petitioners require to be quashed.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent-State would reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The allegations in the charge sheet is that the petitioners-accused criminally trespassed into the house belonging to the second respondent and took away her -6- CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021 grand children, who happen to be the children of petitioner-accused No.1, and also that they assaulted the second respondent and threatened her with dire consequences. However, there is no material produced along with the charge sheet to substantiate the allegations that the petitioners have assaulted the second respondent. Hence, filing of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is not sustainable.
7. Section 441 of the IPC states that whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, is said to have committed the offence of criminal trespass. In the present case, the charge sheet material does not disclose that the petitioners-accused, after criminally trespassing into the house belonging to the second respondent, have committed the any offence or threatened the second respondent with dire consequences. In the absence of any material to disclose that the petitioners after allegedly criminally trespassing have committed any other offence, -7- CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021 the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC is not sustainable.
8. To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC, mere allegation that there was threat to life will not suffice unless it is alleged that, in furtherance of the said threat there was an act by the accused to provoke breach of public peace or commit any other offence. In the present case, except the allegation that the accused gave threat to her life, there is no other allegation that, in furtherance of the said threat, there was a provocation to break public peace and the accused have committed any other offence.
9. It is undisputed that that first petitioner had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and the dispute in the said proceeding was amicably settled by the parties whereby the husband of petitioner No.1-accused No.1 -8- CRL.P No. 102224 of 2021 agreed to take back accused No.1 to the matrimonial home. From this, it is implied that the allegations made against the accused arises out of marital discord, however, are given a criminal texture to pressurize the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.72/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga, as against the petitioners herein is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A. No.1/2021 also stands disposed of as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE KMS