Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath B K vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2021
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Crl.P.2411/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2411 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MANJUNATH. B.K.
S/O NAGAPPA. B.K.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: BENNEHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE - 583127.
2. SMT. NILAMMA. B.K.
W/O MANJUNATH. B.K.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: BENNEHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE - 583127.
3. SRI RAJU. B.K.
S/O MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: BENNEHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE - 583127.
4. SMT. DEEPA
W/O SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: ITTIGI ROAD, MYDUR,
DAVANAGERE - 583127.
Crl.P.2411/2021
2
5. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O KARIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: ITTIGI ROAD, MYDUR,
DAVANAGERE - 583127. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NITHIN. R., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY: SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560009.
2. SMT. SAHANA
W/O NAVEEN B.K.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.99,
SILICON SUN CITY LAYOUT,
HELALIGE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560099. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SUNIL JAMAKHANDI, ADV. FOR R2 [ABSENT])
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.8/2021
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 307, 114, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND
JMFC, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.P.2411/2021
3
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.08/2021 registered by the Suryanagar Police Station, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 114, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC which is now pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, have approached this court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case as against them.
2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are:
The second respondent-complainant had approached the Suryanagar Police Station on 13.01.2021 and lodged a complaint contending that her marriage with the first accused was solemnized on 12.05.2014 and at the time of marriage, as per the demand of the accused persons, her parents had paid cash with gold ornaments, Crl.P.2411/2021 4 silver ornaments and other valuables and also the marriage expenses were met by them. However, after some time, her husband started troubling her and he started demanding dowry. She has stated in her complaint that after marriage she started residing in a rented house at Chandapura in Anekal, Bangalore Rural District along with her husband. She has stated that with regard to the ill-treatment meted out on her by her husband, she had complained to her in-laws, but they have not advised him and on the other hand, they have supported him. She has stated that her husband was consuming alcohol and used to abuse and assault her and also threaten her with dire consequence to her life. She has also stated that her husband had failed to maintain her and her child and also did not provide the basic amenities, which were required to lead a decent life. She has also stated that in addition to torturing her physically and mentally, her husband has also sexually Crl.P.2411/2021 5 tortured her. It is also stated in the complaint that at the instance of the in-laws, her husband had tried "black magic" on the complainant with an intention to cause mental and physical torture to her. It is further stated that her husband has taken her minor son away from her without her permission and subsequently he has also assaulted her causing injuries. On 07.01.2021 her husband abused her and also tried to kill her by throttling her neck. However, she escaped from his clutches and reached her relatives house and thereafterwards called her parents. On the basis of this complaint, FIR in Crime No.08/2021 was registered by the Suryanagar Police against the petitioners and the first accused-husband.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly the first accused and the complainant were residing at Chandapura in Anekal taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The petitioners-1, 2 and 3 are the residents of Crl.P.2411/2021 6 Harappanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District while petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the residents of Hassan District. He submits that even in the FIR, the address of the petitioners are shows as residents of Harappanahalli Taluk and Hassan respectively. He submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the marital dispute between the first accused and the complainant and only for the reason that they are the close relatives of the accused No.1, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that there are no allegations of specific overt acts to attract the alleged offences against the petitioners and the allegations against the petitioners are all omnibus in nature. He submits that from the entire reading of the complaint, the only allegation is with regard to the incident that has taken place on 07.01.2021 and as per the averments made in the complaint, allegations with regard to the incident that had taken place on 07.01.2021 is only as against the husband. He Crl.P.2411/2021 7 submits that, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are Teachers in Government School at Hassan and pendency of the criminal case has been causing them untold hardship and injury.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submits that the complainant has made an allegation as against all the accused persons and investigation is under progress. Since the case is registered for cognizable offences, exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is unwarranted and he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully considered the rival arguments and also perused the material available on record.
6. From the averments made in the complaint, it is very clear that immediately after the marriage, accused No.1- husband and the complainant were residing separately in a rented house at Chandapura, Anekal Crl.P.2411/2021 8 Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Further, the perusal of the FIR it would go to show that admittedly the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are the residents of Harappanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District while petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the residents of Hassan District. From the reading of the complaint averments, it is seen that there are no specific overt acts alleged by the complainant as against any of the petitioners herein. The allegations against the petitioners are all omnibus in nature and the only specific allegation made in the complaint is as against the first accused-husband.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tabrez Khan alias Guddu & Others -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Another1 and Seenivasan -vs- The State by Inspector of Police and Another2 has held that if criminal proceedings is initiated against the family 1 (2019)4 SCC 615 2 (2019) 8 SCC 642 Crl.P.2411/2021 9 members without there being any specific overt acts against them, the same cannot be permitted to be continued. In the absence of specific allegation against the relatives of the husband and also if there are necessary materials to show that the said accused persons are residing separately, the initiation of criminal proceedings as against them merely for the reason that they are the near relatives of the husband is bad in law. The aforesaid judgments squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand. Even in the present case, there are no specific averments as against the petitioners herein so as to attract the alleged offences against them. Further, admittedly the petitioners are residing separately. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Harappanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District, which is at a distance of about 250 kilometers from Bangalore while the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are residing at Hassan District, which is at a distance of 200 kilometers from Bangalore. Crl.P.2411/2021 10
8. Having regard to these materials available on record, the complaint averments prima facie do not make out a case against the petitioners for the alleged offences. Continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners only for the reason that they are the near relatives of the first accused-husband would not only cause them harship, but it would also amount to abuse of process of law.
9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, it is just and necessary to quash the entire proceedings as against the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.08/2021 registered by the Suryanagar Police Station, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable Crl.P.2411/2021 11 under Sections 498A, 307, 114, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC now pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, insofar it relates to the petitioners, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-