Karnataka High Court
Sri.Sattyappa S/O Rayappa Kudagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2022
1 CRL.P.No.101459/2019
C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101459 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101461 OF 2019
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.101459 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SATTYAPPA S/O RAYAPPA KUDAGI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE,
R/O: KONNUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
2. SMT.TULASAVVA W/O SATTYAPPA KUDAGI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KONNUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MABALASHETTY FOR
SRI.SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JAMKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT.RUKMINI W/O VITHAL KUDAGI
2 CRL.P.No.101459/2019
C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
C/O BHIMAPPA S/O: LAXMAN TALAWAR,
R/O: MAREGUDDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.N.L.BATAKURKI, FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2019
AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.31/2019 (IN
P.C.NO.04/2011, JAMAKHANDI RURAL POLICE CRIME
NO.37/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, JAMAKHANDI, BY ALLOWING THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.101461 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI.VITHAL S/O SATTYAPPA KUDAGI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: KONNUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRI.SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JAMKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3 CRL.P.No.101459/2019
C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019
2. SMT.RUKMINI W/O VITHAL KUDAGI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
C/O BHIMAPPA S/O LAXMAN TALAWAR,
R/O: MAREGUDDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 NOTICE SERVED )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2019
AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.31/2019 (IN
P.C.NO.04/2011, JAMAKHANDI RURAL POLICE CRIME
NO.37/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, JAMAKHANDI, BY ALLOWING THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 26.08.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.101461/2019 is the husband and petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101459/2019 are parents-in-law of the complainant and they are arraigned as accused No.1 to 3. Petitioners have filed these two separate petitions under Section 482 of 4 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.31/2019 (In P.C.No.04/2011, Jamakhandi Rural Police Crime No.37/2011) by taking cognizance against them by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, for the offences punishable under sections 498- A, 340, 323, 504, 506(2), 511 read with section 34 of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of these two separate petitions are that respondent No.2 i.e. wife of accused No.1 and daughter-in-law of accused No.2 and 3 filed a complaint against the petitioners and also the sisters of accused No.1, who are arraigned as accused No.4 and 5, alleging that the marriage of accused No.1 and complainant was solemnized on 28.04.2008 at Konnur . All the accused persons harassed and ill-treated the complainant to pressurize her parents to transfer the land standing in the name of her father to the accused No.1 by way of dowry since she is the only daughter. 5 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 After her parents came to know about the alleged harassment, she was brought back to the parental home.
4. Alleging that the concerned police refused to take the complaint, she filed a private complaint. On reference by the Trial Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the jurisdictional police have filed 'B' report. In the B report it is stated that being the only daughter of her parents, the complainant wanted to stay in her parents' house and she was not willing to come and live with the petitioners and she insisted accused No.1 to come and stay with her parents as a 'Mane Aliya'. Petitoners have alleged that when accused No.1 did not heed to their request, a false complaint is filed.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings, accused No.4 died. Complainant filed protest petition to the 'B' report and after recording her sworn statement the Trial Court has taken cognizance only against accused No.1 to 3 and issued summons. Being aggrieved by the same, they have come up with these petitions.
6 CRL.P.No.101459/2019C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019
6. Respondent No.1 has appeared through learned HCGP.
7. Though duly served, respondent No.2 has not appeared before the Court.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the detailed investigation conducted by the police reveal that no offence is made out against the petitioners. Having refused to go to her matrimonial home and live with her husband and in-laws, to coerce accused No.1 to yield to the demand of the complainant and her parents to stay with them as a 'Mane Aliya', a false complaint is filed. The Trial Court has taken cognizance without application of mind. Along with the complaint as well as protest petition, complainant has not produced or enclosed the list of witnesses and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and prays to allow the petitions.
7 CRL.P.No.101459/2019C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019
9. On the other hand, learned HCGP submitted that the petitioners demanded land which is standing in the name of the father of the complainant by way of dowry. They also harassed and ill-treated the complainant to undergo abortion. The divorce petition filed by accused No.1 is dismissed. The DNA test proves that accused No.1 is the father of the child. In the light of the decision in Dr.Ravikumar Vs. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and another1 (Dr.Ravikumar's case), the matter requires remand and prays to dismiss the petitions.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage of complainant and accused No.1 took place on 28.04.2008. It is the case of the complainant that within 15 days of the marriage, all the accused persons started demanding land standing in the name of complainant's father be transferred to the name of accused No.1 as she is only daughter and when they did not agree for it, the accused persons failed to take the complainant to matrimonial home. In the complaint, 1 ILR 2018 KAR 1725 8 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 it is further alleged that after two years, on the intervention of the elders, in June-2010, accused persons took the complainant to the matrimonial home. However, after 3-4 months, they once again started harassing and ill-treating her. At that time, she was carrying and they were forcing her to consume medicine to abort the child and after coming to know about the harassment, the parents of the complainant, they took her back.
11.1. The complainant has also alleged that when she approached the jurisdictional police, they failed to register the complainant and therefore, she filed a private complaint. On the request of the complainant, the Trial Court has referred the complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police to investigate and report.
11.2. In fact, the jurisdictional police investigated the matter and filed 'B' report stating that no offences are not made out against accused persons and on the other hand, it is a case where the complainant is not ready to live in the house of accused persons and she wanted accused No.1 to 9 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 come and stay in her parents' house. By way of arm twisting, she has filed a false complaint.
11.3. To the 'B' report, the complainant filed her protest petition. Thereafter, the Trial Court has recorded her sworn statement. She has also examined her father as CW2. Based on their statements, vide order dated 24.06.2019, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 3 and issued summons, which is being challenged in these two separate petitions.
11.4. At the outset, it is relevant to note that though in the complaint, as a passing remarks, the complainant has stated that she has approached the jurisdictional police with complaint but they refused to register the case and therefore, she is filing the private complaint. Admittedly as required under section 156(3) she has not approached the Higher Police Officer with the complaint requesting them to either investigate or direct the jurisdictional police to investigate the matter. The complainant has not produced the copy of the complaint and proof for having approached the jurisdictional police with the complaint. She has also not 10 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 filed any affidavit that she had approached the jurisdictional police and they have refused to investigate.
11.5. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2 (Priyanka's case), in case of cognizable offences, before filing a private complaint and seeking a reference to the police for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the complainant is required to approach the jurisdictional police and on their failure, to approach the Higher Police Officer with proof that the jurisdictional police have refused to register the case and on the failure of both the jurisdictional police as well as Higher Police Officer, the complainant is required to approach the Trial Court with a private complaint and along with the complaint, the complainant is required to file an affidavit to the effect that both the jurisdictional police as well as Higher Police Officer have failed to take the complaint and therefore, she has approached the Trial Court. Only after fulfilling such formalities, the Trial Court is required to refer the matter to 2 (2015) 6 SCC 287 11 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 the concerned police for investigation. In the present case, the complainant has not chosen to fulfill these formalities.
11.6. Even though without the compliance of these requirements, the Trial Court has referred the matter for investigation, the concerned police have filed 'B' report stating that no case is made out against the accused persons and on the other hand, it is a case where the complainant is not ready to go and live in the matrimonial home.
11.7. The complainant has filed protest petition to the 'B' report. However, as held in Dr.Ravikumar's case, without passing any detailed order rejecting or accepting the 'B' report, the Trial Court has proceeded to record the sworn statement of complainant and her father and based on it, in the order sheet passed an order taking cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the petitioners herein. From perusal of the cryptic order, it is evident that there is no application of mind by the Trial Court as to why the 'B' report is not accepted. In fact, there is no order either accepting or rejecting the 'B' report before permitting the complainant to record her sworn statement as well as that of her father. As 12 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, along with the complaint, the complainant has not at all filed any list of witnesses.
12. The marriage of accused No.1 and the complainant took place in the year 2008 and since then accused persons are being harassed. Already 14 years have lapsed. This is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no purpose would serve by remanding the matter for passing order on 'B' report and continuation of the complaint and it is a fit case to quash the proceedings and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petitions are allowed.
The impugned order of taking cognizance dated 24.06.2019 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.31/2019 (in P.C.No.04/2011, Jamakhandi Rural Police Crime No.37/2011) against accused nos.1 to 3, pending on the file of the Principal 13 CRL.P.No.101459/2019 C/W CRL.P.No101461/2019 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC court, Jamakhandi, is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of these petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN