SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prakash S/O. Fakirappa Bhajantri vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2018

CRL.P.No.100936/2018

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100936/2018

BETWEEN:

1 PRAKASH S/O. FAKIRAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,
R/O. KOUJALAGAI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
2 SONAWWA W/O. FAKIRAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK.
DIST. BELAGAVI.
3 FAKIRAPPA BHAJANTRI
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.J.PEERAJADE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
KULGOD POLICE STATION,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD.

… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
CRL.P.No.100936/2018

:2:


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE ON BAIL, IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE KULGOD POLICE IN
CONNECTION WITH KULGOD POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.127/2018 OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 498(A),
323, 324, 504 R/W. SEC. 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

At the instance of one Smt. Renuka @ Sharada W/o.

Prakash Bhajantri the complainant/respondent police

have registered a complaint against the present petitioners

in their station in Crime No.127/2018 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324, 504 r/w.

Section 34 of IPC. The summary of the said complaint is

that, the complainant is the wife of the present petitioner

No.1 having married to him about 15 years back. After 3

or 4 years, after her marriage her husband and the

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are her In-laws started

subjecting her to cruelty by accusing her and objecting

her for no valid reasons and on trivial matters like the
CRL.P.No.100936/2018

:3:

complainant does not know as to how to cook and to carry

their family occupation. The complainant has also stated

that the same being the case on 19.05.2018, she was

objected to by her mother-in-law i.e. petitioner No.2 for

the reason that the complainant had not covered her face

with the Saree she was wearing. The explanation given by

the petitioner that she was carrying the water filled pot on

her head and that she would abide by the instruction of

her mother-in-law could not satisfy the said mother-in-law

who in turn assaulted her daughter in law i.e., the

complainant. It is with these accusations the complainant

has lodged the complaint against the present petitioner for

the alleged offences.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his

argument submitted that a bare reading of the complaint

by itself go to show that the allegations

leveled against the petitioners are all trivial and baseless.

An alleged objection by the mother-in-law to the extent

that, the daughter-in-law does not know how to cook
CRL.P.No.100936/2018

:4:

properly would not attract Section 498A of IPC. He further

submits that, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are aged people

under the care and protection of petitioner No.1 and arrest

of them made if any by the complainant-police would

cause great injustice to them. He also submitted that their

apprehension is not required for any investigation

purposes.

3. Learned HCGP who is appearing for the

respondent in his argument submitted that, a reading of

the complaint itself go to show that the petitioners being

the husband and in-laws of the complainant have been ill-

treating her. No further material than a bonafide sincere

statement of the victim/complainant is required at this

stage to arrive at an opinion that the petitioners have

committed the alleged offences. Expressing his

apprehension that the accused may flee from justice and

may not co-operate with the investigation, the learned

HCGP prays for rejection of the petition.

CRL.P.No.100936/2018

:5:

4. A reading of the complaint at this stage would

go to show that the main accusation of the complainant

against her in-laws or that they were objecting to her

routine activities alleging that she does not know how to

cook properly and is not continuing the family traditional

practices properly. The accusation against petitioner No.1,

the husband of the complainant is that he was standing in

support of his parents rather than coming to the help of

the complainant. In this background, whether a mere

objection for the alleged non-expertising household work

would itself constitute a cruelty under Section 498-A has

to be decided after conducting a trial, if it is held, taking

into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case.

Confining to the material placed before the Court at this

stage, it cannot be said that there is any requirement for

apprehension of the petitioners for any investigation

purposes. The alleged offences are not heinous and not

punishable with the death or life imprisonment. The

apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may
CRL.P.No.100936/2018

:6:

flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable

restrictions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

In the event the petitioners/accused persons are

apprehended by the Kulgod Town Police Station in Crime

No.127/2018 for the offence punishable under Section

498(A), 323, 324, 504 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, they shall be

enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail subject to the

conditions that;

i. They shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of `20,000/- each (Rupees Twenty
Thousand Only) with two sureties for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging
Authority. No single surety can give his
surety ship for more than two accused.

ii. They shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every first and fourth Wednesday
of every month between 09.00 a.m. and
1.00 p.m. and mark their attendance till
the charge sheet is filed.

CRL.P.No.100936/2018

:7:

iii. They shall not hamper or tamper the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.

iv. They shall voluntarily surrender before the
jurisdictional Magistrate within three weeks
from today and may file an application for
regular bail. In such an event, the said
Court to dispose of the said bail application
not being influenced by the order passed in
this matter.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*Svh/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh