Karnataka High Court
Savita D/O Subhashandra Eli vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101113 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SAVITA D/O. SUBHASCHANDRA ELI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/O: PLOT NO.19, BASAVA NILAYA,
HASTINAPUR LAYOUT, KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
PRESENTLY WORKING AT OPEN TEXT (G.X.S),
NO.2, PRESTIGE EMERALD,
MADRAS BANK ROAD, LEVELIE ROAD,
BENGALURU-1.
2. SUBHASHANDRA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA ELI,
CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
LAXMAN R/O: PLOT NO.19, BASAVA NILAYA,
KATTIMANI
HASTINAPUR LAYOUT, KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI,
Digitally signed by DIST: DHARWAD.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN 3. TRILOCHANA W/O. SUBHASCHANDRA ELI,
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.07.28 AGED ABOUT 59 EYARS,
11:03:41 -0700 OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: PLOT NO.19,
BASAVA NILAYA, HASTINAGPUR LAYOUT,
KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT AND
SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATES)
-2-
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH,
AT: DHARWAD,
BY ITS DHARWAD POLICE STATION.
2. BASAVENNEPPA S/O. LINGAPPA SHIVALLI,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED TEACHER,
R/O: H.NO.11, SAROVAR NAGAR,
KELAGERI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT BEARING P.C.
NO.148/2014 DATED 21.05.2014 AND THE ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE DATED 16.05.2019 IN C.C. NO.403/2016
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.499, 500,
501 R/W 34 OF IPC BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC-II, DHARWAD, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. V.M. Sheelavant, lear ned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and -3- CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019 Sri. S. N. Bana kar, learned counsel for resp ondent No.2. Perused the rec ords.
2. The pres ent petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P .C. with th e following prayer :-
"i. WHEREF ORE, it is most respectf ul ly prayed that this Hon' bl e Court be pl eased to qu ash the com plai nt beari ng P.C. No.148/2014 dated 21. 05. 2014 and the order of taki ng cogni zance dated 16.05. 2019 in C .C. No. 403/2 016 registered for th e of fenc e pu nish abl e U/ Se c. 499, 500, 501 read with Secti on 34 of IPC b efor e the Hon'ble II Additi onal Ci vil Judge and JMFC II, Dharw ad, again st the peti tioners, in the interes t of justi ce.
ii. G ran t su ch oth er and fu rther reliefs as this Cou rt de ems fi t in th e in terest of justic e. "
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the second resp ondent herein which was nu mbered a s P.C.R. No.148/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 -4- CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019 and 501 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner s.
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that second respondent is father-in-law of first petitioner. Marriage of first p etitioner with son of the second respondent was per formed on 25.04.2008 at Dharwad and thereafter a son was b orn to the couple. On account of some serious differenc es the matrimonial relationship of the son of secon d respondent and first petitioner, there were complaints and counter complaints including a petition s eeking custody of sole child to the couple.
There was an order pass ed by the competent Court granting custody of the son of first petitioner and grand-son of second resp ondent to first petitioner.
5. It is contended that in order to frustrate that order, second respondent and his wife tried to kidnap the minor child and to take th e minor chi ld to United State America. In that regard first petitioner herein approach ed the jurisdictional Police and minor -5- CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019 child said to have been rescued from the Airport. The registration of criminal case against second respondent and his wife appeared in media and a new s paper carried headlines stating that "CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÉÆ¸É zÀÆgÀÄ". It is contended that publication of said new s item in the paper, had a wide publicity and whereby second respondent and his wife were defamed in the society and therefore action was initiated through the private complaint.
6. After registration of the private complaint, an affidavit came to be filed as sworn statement. Later on as per the direction of this Court, s worn statement of second respondent was recorded and matter was referred and the p olice had filed 'B' final report in rega rd the complaint filed by secon d respondent.
7. Based on the sworn sta tement and other material on r ecords, learn ed Magistrate took cognizanc e of the matter and the matter is now -6- CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019 pending before learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Dharwad in C.C. No.403/2016. In the meantime, petitioners being the a ccused in said criminal case, have approached this Court to quash the criminal proceedings on the following grounds:
"1. That the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence much less the one alleged U/s.499, 500, 501 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC and the several allegations made in the complaint as well as the very complaint itself is totally frivolous, concocted, baseless and is not sustainable either in law or on the facts of the case and as such the complaint as well as the impugned proceedings herein are liable to be quashed.
2. That the Learned Magistrate has crept into serious error by registering a criminal case against the petitioner's as the complaint on the face of it appears to be false and concocted. Mere filing of complaint with the police against the respondent No.2 herein cannot be termed as defamation and the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the publication of the article in the newspaper.
3. That the petitioner No. 1 herein had filed the complaint stating the true facts/incidents and filing of B-report by police doesn't disprove the facts or the averments made by the petitioner No.1 in her -7- CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019 complaint admits that he was leaving to US along with his wife and grandson Ishaan on 24-3-2013 and was arrested at the Bengaluru Airport and brought to Hubli Keshwapur Police Station. As such the Kidnap complaint made by the petitioner herein is genuine and is not a false complaint as alleged by the respondent No.2 in the defamation case.
4. That the respondent police filed B-report in the Kidnap complaint as the complainant handed over Ishaan to the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 acting upon the assurance given by the respondent No.2 and with a hope to compromise other matrimonial disputes pending between them gave the written consent to withdraw her complaint. As such mere filing B-report by the police authorities doesn't falsify the true incident that petitioner No. 1's son was taken away from her custody.
5. That the petitioner No.2 and 3 who are the aged father and mother of petitioner No.1 are roped into above proceedings by the complainant only to cause mental agony and harassment and to settle the score with the petitioner No. 1.
6. That the Learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner's cannot be held responsible for the publication of any news item by the reporters in the newspaper. The reporters of the newspaper when usually do visit -8- CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019 the police station in their usual course, the police authorities do inform them about the various complaints registered in police station and such reports will be published in the newspaper. The police authorities from the police station might have made the contents of the complaint available to some reporter of the newspaper. As such the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the article that was published in the newspaper and petitioners at no point of time have made available the contents of complaint for the publication in the newspaper.
7. That the Learned Magistrate has totally failed to appreciate the fact that, it is the petitioner No.1's right to complain to appropriate authorities to protect the interest of her minor son Ishaan and had every right to the custody of the child as natural guardian. Nevertheless, filing of complaint by petitioner No.1 in itself against the complainant cannot be considered as defamatory averments.
8. It is submitted that, the alleged offences mentioned in complaint are covered in exception No.8 to the provision of Sec.499 of IPC. This fact is lost sight by the learned JMFC Court.
9. It is submitted that, even if entire complaint averments are perused, it will not disclose the ingredients of the offences of Sec. 499 and 500 of IPC.-9- CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019
10. It is further submitted that, the continuance of the impugned proceedings on the file of Learned JMFC Court amounts to abuse of process of law and waste of valuable time of Hon'ble Court. Hence the petition deserves to be allowed.
11. That the entire complaint, the allegations made therein and the averments made are totally baseless, concocted, false and not sustainable either in law or on the facts of the case and as such the entire proceedings in the said complaint are liable to be quashed.
12. That the Learned Magistrate has failed to follow and has violated various legal pronouncements of law as laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the matter in issue."
8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Shri. M. L. Vanti learned counsel for the petitioner s vehemently contended that in dented action on behalf of petitioners by approaching the police is only with an obj ec t of pr otecting the interest of minor child and to implement the Court orders in force and in such anxiety, if first petitioner has committed any act which would affect the name and
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019fa me of s econd respondent and his wife, the first petitioner is intending apology for the said act and sought for quash ing of further pr oceedings.
9. In that regard an affidavit of first petitioner is filed before th e Court today, wher ein an unconditi onal ap ology is tendered by first petitioner to second respondent and his wife.
10. Based on the above factual aspects, Shri. M. L. Vanti, learned counsel for petitioner s s ought for quashin g of further proceedings as continuation of the criminal case would further deteri orate the relationship among th e parties and sought for passing an appropriate order.
11. Learned High Court Govern ment Pleader would c ontended that since the 'B' final report came to be filed and the matter is now being proceeded by second respondent by approaching the Cour t with a protest petition, role of the prosecution has come to an end and sought for passing an appropriate or der.
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019
12. Shri, S. N. Banakar, learned advocate representing sec ond respondent, howev er c on tended that second respondent and his wife being grand parents of the minor child, could not have been accused of kidnapping of their own grandson. A trivial incident has been blown out of proportion by the first petitioner in not only a pproaching the police but also approaching the media, resultin g in tarnishing the image, name and fame of secon d respondent and his wife and his family. Therefore, such people must be taught a proper lesson to deter such incidents to be repeated.
13. He also contended that per-se there wa s no criminality in taking the grandson by secon d respondent and his wife and un-necessarily police have been called in and ugly action has been initiated against second respondent and his wife and therefore, sought for rejection of the petition.
14. Second res pondent as on the date of filing the private complaint was aged 71 y ears and he is
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019now in early 80's. His wife has passed away during the pendency of the case and therefore, sought for rejection of the petition.
15. In view of th e above factual aspects and rival contentions of the parties, this Court bestowed his best attention to the material on record.
16. Admi ttedly, a minor child was given custody by the Court in G & WC No.5/2013 to the first petitioner. On account of serious differ ences between the petitioner and her husba nd, secon d respondent and his wife attempted to take the minor child along with their to United States America. When firs t petitioner came to k now about the same, in her anxiety to retain the custody of minor child, she has necessarily approached the jurisdic tional police and with the assistance of police, minor child was rescued from the Airport and was given to the custody of first petitioner.
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019
17. Filing of the complaint and further action thereof was reported by the Media extensively. About the news item print media carried th e hea dline that "CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÉÆ¸É zÀÆgÀÄ".
18. Admi ttedly, the aged couple were hurt by the said publication of news item. According to second resp ondent a minor and a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion by first petitioner and action on the part of fir st petitioner is excessive and uncalled for.
19. Shri. M.L. Vanti, learned counsel for the petitioner s how ever contended that in order to protect the interest of minor child and to get the order duly passed by con stituted Cour t pas sed in G & WC No.5/ 2013 is properly impla nted the said ac t on the part of first petitioner was u tmost necessary .
20. The fa cts remains that the minor child was rescued by the police and was given to the custody of
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019first petitioner and continues to be in the custod y of the first petitioner.
21. The dispute as to the matrimonial relationship in respect of severance of the marital tie is now pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court as is submitted by the parties.
22. Under these circumstances, since the custody of minor child has been repatriated to first petitioner as p er the orders pa ss ed by the Competent Court in G & WC No.5/2013, interest of first petitioner stood satisfied. It is submitted that wife of second respondent is no more. Second respondent is als o now aged abou t 80 years. Taking note of the age mentioned in the private complaint continuation of the cri minal proceedings at this stag e by second respondent as against petitioners herein would further resulting in increasing the mental agony to the parti es. Second an d third petitioners are also senior citizens. First petitioner also retraced her mistake in hurriedly approaching the police and has
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019tendered unconditional apology by way of an affidavit. First petitioner is present before this Court and she submits that she had absolutely no intentions of hurting anybody much less her parents- in-law.
23. Remorse is the best remedy for any sin/misdeed. The Courts are a lso expected to fin d out the appr opriate punishment for a offence while passing the sentence where remorse is expressed by an accused. But integrating remorse and apology and it's effect at early s tage of criminal pr oceedings in yet to be evolved in Indian Scenario while administering the dispensation of jus tice at lea st in cases where offences are not gave.
24. If a pers on accused of a criminal offence, approach es th e Court is bona fide remorse and pleads for mer cy and tenders unconditional apology , the Courts are expected to consider the same at any stage of the criminal proceedings. More s o, if the offence alleged is privy to the p arties and not h aving
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019any serious effect on s ocietal interest and social fabric.
25. Sinc e first p etitioner in the case on hand, has expressed h er remorse by way of an affidavit and sinc erely tendered an unconditional apology, the scar if any that has been caused to the s ec ond respondent should get heeled.
26. After all first petition er is none other then the daughter-in-law of second respondent. In Indian scenario, elders are expected to play role in settin g right the misdeeds committed by the youngsters. Second respond ent being the father-in-law of first petitioner, should cherish the value of condoning the mistakes of the youngsters. So goes the saying "to err is human and to forgive is divine".
(Em phasis su pplie d)
27. Second petitioner is in the evening of his life being aged 80 years. He sh ould lead a peaceful life. By quashing the pen ding proceedings by
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019accepting unc onditional apology would avoid secon d respondent in attending the trial court for the purpose of tend ering the evidence an d go thr ough the ordeal of criminal proceedings; appeal thereof.
28. Thus, in the considered opini on of this Court, such pr oceeding s are totally uncalled for an elderly soul. More so, when firs t petitioner has tendered an unconditional apology.
29. Keeping in mind all these peculiar aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that thi s is the fittest ca se where this Court ha s to exercise inherent power vested in it under Section 482 of Cr.P .C.
30. Further, in view of foregoing discus sion, the facts and circumstan ces of the ca se not only invites but demands, the interference of this Court in putting an end to the unwanted litigation.
- 18 -
CRL.P No. 101113 of 2019
31. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDE R Criminal Petition is allowed.
Pending proceedings in C.C. No.403/2016 on the file of learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Dharwad is her eby quash ed by keeping the unconditional apology tendered by first petitioner in the for m of an affidavit.
However, it is made clear that
petitioner s in any way shall not hurt
secon d respondent in future.
Ordered a cc ordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5