Karnataka High Court
Siddalingesh S/O Andanayya Salimath vs Anikha S/O Siddalingesh Salimath on 16 March, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 16th day of March 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No.100102/2017
BETWEEN
1. SIDDALINGESH,
S/O ANDANAYYA SALIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
ASST. PROFESSOR,
KIMS HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. ANDANAYYA,
S/O ISHWARAYYA SALIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RETD. GOVT. SERVANT
3. ARUNDATHI,
W/O ANDANAYYA SALIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL R/O. HOUSE NO.54,
LAKSHMINARAYAN NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
4. SHWETHA,
W/O NAGESH KADADEVARMATH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2
5. SHRI. NAGESH,
W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR KADADEVARMATH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
NO.4 & 5 R/O H.NO.D2,
POLICE QUARTERS, HONNALLI,
DIST: DAVANGERE. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. ANIKHA,
S/O SIDDALINGESH SALIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
DOCTOR,
R/O: C/O: S.V. KUBEEHAL,
KUBEEHAL BUILDING,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MAHILA P.S., HUBLI-DHARWAD,
NOW REP. BY THE SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R2
SRI. M.L.VANTI FOR SRI V.M. SHEELVANT, FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.2016 MADE
IN C.C.NO. 3968 FO 2016 PASSED BY THE JMFC I COURT
HUBBALLI AND ALSO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO. 3968 OF 2016 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 323, 506, 149 AND 3 AND
4 OF D.V.ACT PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER THERE TO
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.3968/2016 on the file of JMFC I Court, Hubballi, in taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act.
3. The records disclose that the 1st respondent has filed a First Information Report before the police making the allegations for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The said First Information Report was registered in Women Police Station, Hubli North Sub-Division, Hubballi, Dharwad, on 15.10.2015. It is alleged in the said FIR that on 26.11.2014, the marriage of the 1st respondent had taken place with the 1st petitioner and, after the marriage, the petitioners herein, who are the husband and the relatives of her husband, have started ill- 4 treating and harassing her with an intention to demand more dowry amount, and that they also assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences of killing her, if she did not give divorce to the 1st petitioner. The police, after thorough investigation, have submitted a 'B' summary report before the JMFC, Hubballi. The said 'B' summary report was contested by the complainant by filing objections to the 'B' summary report.
4. On careful perusal of the objections filed to 'B' summary report, it is seen the allegations made therein are against the investigating agency that they have not properly conducted the investigation. Except that, nothing is stated in the objections filed to the 'B' summary report about the allegations made in the First Information Report, so as to constitute the said objection as a private complaint enabling the jurisdictional Magistrate to take cognizance and proceed with the case. In spite of that, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant and, thereafter, has issued 5 process against the accused, which proceedings are called in question by way of filing this petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ramachandra Mali, has, very intelligently, produced an order of this Court passed in Crl. P. No.11326/2013, disposed of on 09.01.2014, in which case, the very advocate, who is appearing for respondent No.1 herein, had appeared for the petitioners. In the aforesaid criminal petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that the objections filed to the 'B' summary report has to be in the nature of private complaint, otherwise the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the accused person. Considering the said argument, this Court vide order dated 09.01.2014 allowed the said criminal petition and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1035/2013. The said order of this Court has been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case.
6. In the order passed in the criminal petition referred to above, this Court has, in detail, dealt with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and also observed what should 6 be the contents of the objections to the 'B' final report, and held that, it should be in the nature of a 'complaint' as defined under Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. After a detailed discussion, this Court has come to the conclusion that if the objections filed to the 'B' summary report is not in the nature of a private complaint and if the objections does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process against the accused persons. The above said principle, in a straight-jacket manner, is applicable to this case also.
7. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reason to sustain the order passed by the learned Magistrate, and the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
Order The petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No.3968/2016, and the order taking cognizance and issuing 7 summons against the accused for the for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and all further proceedings in the said criminal case, pending on the file of the JMFC-I Court, Hubli, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms