Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Prathibha M.R vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 31155-58/2015 [GM-RES]
BETWEEN :
1. MRS. PRATHIBHA M.R
W/O SURESH M
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 18/40
3RD CROSS, KASTURBA NAGAR
ASHWATH KATTER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560026
2. MRS VANAJAKSHI G
W/O RUDRAMUNIYAPPA K T
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 18/40
3RD CROSS KASTURABA NAGAR
ASHWATH KATTER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560026
3. MRS VANAJAKSHI G
S/O RUDRAMUNIYAPPA K T
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 18/40
3RD CROSS KASTURABA NAGAR
ASHWATH KATTER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560026.
(PETITIONER NO.3 DELETED VIDE ORDER DT. 10.09.2018)
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. SATEESH S KUDTARKAR, ADV.)
W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015
-2-
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB - INSPECTOR
HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION
CHAMARAJPET SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU CITY
BENGALURU - 560019
REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA
BENGALURU - 560001
2. MR SURESH M
S/O MOHANRAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 57/35 R V NAGAR
KALIDASA LAYOUT
3RD CROSS SRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560050.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R-1
Sri.M.S.BHAGWAT, ADV. FOR R-2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH/STRIKE DOWN THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNX-A REGISTERED BY THE
R-1 IN THEIR CRIME REGISTER IN CRIME NO.306/2014 FOR
THE OFFENCES U/S- 341, 34, 504, 323, 506(B) OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE ON THE BASIS OF COMPLAINT WHICH HAS BEEN
PRODUCED AT ANNX-B FILED BY THE R-2 AGAINST THE
PETTIIONERS WHICH IS REGISTERED WITHOUT THE
APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE R-1 POLICE AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING-B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015
-3-
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the charge sheet filed by the 1st respondent-Police in the Station crime No.306/2014 against the petitioners herein in C.C. No.10608/2015 in the Court of the learned XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru (henceforth for brevity referred to as "Court below") for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal code.
2. The summary of the charge sheet is that the complainant in the said case by name Sri.Suresh.M married the present petitioner No.1- Smt.Prathibha.M.R., on 4.5.2007. Some difference of opinion arose between them in their marital life. On 20.11.2014 at about 12.30 hours, the present petitioner No.1, joined by her mother and elder W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015 -4- brother who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said criminal case, barged into the house of the complainant and threatened the complainant of putting an end to his life in case if he fails to give them Rs.20 lakhs. In the said process, the accused also manhandled the complainant and assaulted him. It is also stated in the complaint that at that time when CW-2 attempted to rush to the rescue of the complainant, the accused assaulted him also. It is also alleged that the accused also abused and threatened CW-3 and CW-4.
3. The contention of the petitioners as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said complaint along with accused No.3, who is the elder brother of petitioner No.1, have been falsely implicated by the complainant, who, in connivance with the complainant-Police have hoisted a W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015 -5- false case against them. It is further the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is delay in lodging the complaint and that as a counter blast to the criminal complaint filed by petitioner No.1 alleging dowry harassment against the complainant and his family, a false case has been lodged against the petitioners. Further, it is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that CW-2 and CW-3, who are the brother and father of the complainant are practicing Advocate and retired Police Officer, respectively, as such the entire false complaint has been designed and created by them only to harass the petitioners herein. Further, accused No.3, who is the elder brother of the petitioner No.1 is a differently abled person and is suffering with polio to his left leg and it is highly unbelievable that such a person could participate in the alleged crime, more particularly, in the act of alleged W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015 -6- assaulting of CW-1. It is also further the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners approached the complainant-Police on 1.12.2014 itself to lodge a complaint, however, the Station House Officer refused to register the complaint on the same day stating that it is a matrimonial case, as such asked them to come after few days. In the meantime, the Station House Officer summoned the present respondent No.2 and got a complaint lodged by him against the petitioners. The same was done in view of the fact that CW-2 and CW3 are the practicing Advocate and retired Police Officer in the family of CW-1.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 in his argument submitted that the contents of the complaint makes out a prima facie case, which deserves to be tried. Admittedly after noticing that there are materials to proceed further, the trial Court W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015 -7- has framed the charge and the matter is set down for evidence of the parties.
5. It is not in dispute that present petitioner No.1 is the wife of present respondent No.2 and that their marriage was performed on 4.5.2007. According to both, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, there arose some difference/dispute in their marital life. Each party was blaming the other side for such differences. It is the contention of petitioner No.1 herein that she was thrown out of the house of the complainant (her husband) on 18.11.2014. She also attempted to lodge a complaint on 1.12.2014 before the complainant -Police, but they did not register it on the same day. However, admittedly except the say of the petitioner that she attempted to lodge a complaint on 1.12.2014 but the same was not registered on the same day, there is no material to corroborate the same. On the other hand, the complaint at W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015 -8- Annexure-K shows that the date of complaint as 6.12.2014 and it is registered on the very same day. Though by looking at the date of the complaint itself, it cannot be concluded at this stage by this Court that the complainant therein i.e., petitioner No.1 herein approached the Police Station to lodge the complaint only on 6.12.2014, but, suffice it to say that at this stage and a bare looking of Annexure-K, the complaint shows the date as 6.12.2014.
6. The petitioners herein alleged delay in 2nd respondent lodging the complaint against them before the 1st respondent -Police. According to the petitioners the alleged incident is said to have been taken place on 20.11.2014 and complaint was lodged on 4.12.2014 with delay of 15 days.
No doubt, according to the 2nd respondent, the alleged incident took place on 20.11.2014. Even according to 2nd respondent, he lodged a complaint in W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015 -9- that regard only on 4.12.2014. There is delay of 15 days. However, it cannot be ignored simultaneously that according to petitioner No.1 herein, she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 18.11.2014 and in that regard, complaint is said to have been registered by her on 6.12.2014, which also involves about 15 days delay. As such, the alleged delay, if can be explained by respective complainants/parties before the Court, which is seized of the matter, this Court in the present petition cannot conclude that the alleged delay itself is the ground for disbelieving the case of the complainant.
7. The second argument of the learned counsel that the present complaint under challenge is a counter blast to the complaint of petitioner No.1 against 2nd respondent and his family members, wherein she has alleged dowry harassment is concerned, merely because the petitioner claiming to W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015
- 10 -
be the wife of present respondent No.2/complainant and that she too has instituted a criminal case against her husband and his family members cannot by itself be concluded that the complaint lodged by the husband is a counter blast to the complaint filed by the wife alleging cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and also with regard to dowry, punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Admittedly, the complaint is said to have been lodged by the present petitioner No.1 herein has been charge sheeted wherein present 2nd respondent is said to be accused No.1 and the offence alleged are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. That being the case, both sides/parties will have an opportunity to test the truthfulness in the alleged compliant of the opposite party by leading evidence from their side. As such, it is premature to say or to conclude that the present W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015
- 11 -
complaint under consideration is a counter blast to the complaint said to have been filed by petitioner No.1 (wife).
8. Third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that CW-2 and CW-3, who are the brother and father of CW-1, respectively, are the practicing Advocate and retired Police Officer, as such they could manage filing of a false complaint. Merely because CW-2 and CW-3 are said to be the practicing Advocate and retired Police Officer, by their position it cannot be inferred that there is some interference by them and using their influence, a false case has been lodged. Though their position may give scope to the petitioner to make such an allegation too, the truthfulness in the said allegation would also be a subject matter of trial. As such, the said contention that because of their position, CW-2 and CW-3 have W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015
- 12 -
managed getting a false charge sheet filed against the present petitioners is also unacceptable.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted in his argument that accused No.3 in the instant case, who is the elder brother of petitioner No.1 is a differently abled person, whose left leg is attacked with polio, as such it is unimaginable that he could involve in the alleged offence of assaulting CW-1/ respondent No.2. In that connection, learned counsel for the petitioners also read out a statement said to have been made by present respondent No.2 in his evidence in Criminal Misc. No.135/2015 before the Hon'ble MMTC-V, Bengaluru, admitting that accused No.3 herein is suffering with polio to his left leg. By that itself, it cannot be inferred that he has not participated in the alleged act of assault of CW-1. However, the finding of the truth in the said allegation would be the task of the trial Court while ascertaining W.P. Nos.31155-58/2015
- 13 -
the evidence led before it. As such, said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not acceptable.
10. Barring the above, no other grounds are shown to allow the petition. As analyzed above, the grounds raised and contentions taken are not sufficient to hold that a false charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and the said charge sheet deserves to be quashed. As such, I do not find any merit in these petitions.
Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.