Karnataka High Court
Santhos Rano vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8572 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SANTHOS RANO
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
SON OF SUSHIL KUMAR RANO
R/AT NO.2507, 14TH MAIN
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 078
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 101
2. SMT. ANUP KUMAR MANDAL
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O SISIR KUMAR MONDAL
R/AT NO.P30, BLOCK B
LAKE TOWN, KOLKATTA
WEST BENGAL - 700 089
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H. R., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. JAYAPRAKASH REDDY, ADV. FOR R-2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8374/2016 PENDING BEFORE
THE V ACMM, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above petition with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8374/2016 pending before the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in the charge sheet laid against him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The allegation in the brief against the petitioner is that he was married to one Tinku Mandal on 24.02.2014. After marriage, the petitioner along 3 with his mother accused No.2 and his sister accused No.3 in C.C.No.8374/2016 were quarelling with the said Tinku Mandal for every small matter. He used to abuse her with vulgar words, he used to tell her that she should not go for work and that she has to stay at the home and do only household work and he used to harass her mentally.
5. On 15.03.2015 at about 7.00 p.m. the petitioner along with his mother quarreled with Tinku Mandal in respect of cooking food and told her that from tomorrow she should not go to work, she should stay in the house and do only household work, if not she should go out of the house and die. Because of the said abuse, the said Tinku Mandal committed suicide at about 7.30 p.m. in the night by hanging herself.
4
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the complaint along with the statement of witnesses before the police in support of the complaint were to be considered on its face value still it would not amount to petitioner committing an offence under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. He has further contended that there is no abatement as per Section 107 of IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in LAWS (SC) 2002 5 55 and also in the case of Gopalkrishna vs. Sharad Kumar as reported in LAWS (KAR) 2014 3 317.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the complaint made against the petitioner and the statement of witnesses 5 before the police constitutes a prima facie case against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner by invoking provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. Further, they have contended that accused No.2, the mother of the petitioner herein along with accused No.3, the sister of the petitioner herein had filed Crl.P.No.3084/2016 before this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. This Hon'ble Court after hearing them in detail quashed the same only in so far as it relates to accused No.3, the sister of the petitioner, but, rejected the same as against accused No.2, the mother of the petitioner herein. It is their contention that the allegation made against the petitioner is more 6 severe than the allegation made against the accused No.2. On the said ground they have sought for dismissal of the above petition.
11. Perusal of the records clearly shows that the allegations made against the petitioner (accused No.1) herein is same as the allegations made against accused No.2, the mother of the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner and the deceased Tinku Mandal lived together since marriage and it is a specific allegation in the complaint that the deceased was subjected to mental harassment since marriage and that the petitioner and his mother did not want her to go to work and wanted her to be confined to the household work and were ill-treating her. Further, the statements of CW-2 and 3, namely, the landlord and immediate neighbour where the deceased was residing have graphically narrated the incident that has taken place at the house immediately before the 7 deceased committed suicide. They all state as to the harassment meted out to the deceased by the petitioner which prompted her to commit suicide.
12. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in LAWS (SC) 2002 5 55 in para 13, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant has used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased 'to go and die'. For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of 8 Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him 'to go and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the 9 appellant on 25th July, 1998 drived the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below."
In the above decision as noted above the abusive words were told to the deceased on 25.07.1998. The deceased was found hanging on 27.07.1998. There was enough time for the deceased to think over and reflect. In the instant case, as per the complaint and the statements, there was continuous harassment for the deceased and the abuse on the fateful day triggered her to commit suicide. There has been no lapse of time. For the 10 said reason, the petitioner cannot rely upon the decision in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in LAWS (SC) 2002 5 55.
13. Similarly, in the case of Gopalkrishna vs. Sharad Kumar reported in LAWS (KAR) 2014 3 317, this Hon'ble Court in para No.20 has concluded as under:-
"there is absolutely no allegation about any illegal act of accused or any wrongful act of accused which led the deceased to commit suicide".
On facts, the Court has concluded that the plain reading of complaint and also the averments in sworn statement, the Court is of the opinion that the no offence either under Section 306 of IPC or as defined under Section 107 of IPC is constituted. 11
14. In the instant case, the offence alleged is not only under Section 306 but also under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. The plain reading of the allegations constitutes an offence under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. It is already been so held in Crl.P. No.3084/2016 against the accused No.2, who is the mother of the petitioner and the allegations alleged against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.8374/2016 on the file of XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are similar.
15. The petitioner would succeed where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner.
12
In the instant case, the allegations when taken on face value constitute an offence as alleged in the charge sheet.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
17. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the contentions raised by the parties in this case. The trial Court shall not be influenced in whatsoever manner with the observations made in this order and shall take independent decision even at the stage of considering the case of the petitioner for discharge if any filed by him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE MH/-