SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr Devendra vs State By K R Puram P S on 21 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Mr Devendra vs State By K R Puram P S on 21 February, 2024

Author: K.Natarajan

Bench: K.Natarajan

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7427
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1. MR. DEVENDRA
S/O SREERAMA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NO.24, K. V. LAYOUT (CLUB ROAD),
L. V. S. APTS,
ANANDAPURA,
T. C. PALYA MAIN ROAD,
K. R. PURAM,
BENGALURU – 560 036.

2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SREERAMA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
NO.24, K. V. LAYOUT (CLUB ROAD),
VEDAVATHI A K L. V. S. APTS,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka ANANDAPURA,
T. C. PALYA MAIN ROAD,
K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU – 560 036.

3. MR. KABAIR
S/O. SREERAMA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
NO.24, K. V. LAYOUT (CLUB ROAD),
L. V. S. APTS,
ANANDAPURA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7427
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2023

T. C. PALYA MAIN ROAD,
K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANIL R., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. MANJUNATHA G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY K. R. PURAM PS
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 090.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

2. MRS. MOUNISHA
W/O. DEVENDRA,
D/O. LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT SLV APARTMENT,
3RD FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
KV LAYOUT, ANANDAPURA,
KR PURA,
BENGALURU CITY – 560 036.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K P YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1/STATE,
SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR R H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.52167/2022 FILED UNDER FIR NO.380/2021
REGISTERED BY R1-KR PURAM P.S., BY THE COMPLAINT FILED
BY R2MRS.MOUNISHA UNDER SEC.498A, 504, 506, 34 OF
IPC
IN CR.NO.380/2021 PENDING BEFORE 10TH ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL, AT BENGALURU PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE
ABOVE PETITION, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7427
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2023

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.52167/2022

arising out of the Crime No.380/2021 registered by K.R.Puram

Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of

the respondent No.2 the police registered the FIR. It is alleged

by her that she was previously married to another person and

after divorce, she was married to this petitioner accused No.1,

as he was relative from her maternal aunt. The marriage was

held on 31.8.2022. Subsequently they looked after her for

some time and thereafter the accused Nos.1, 2 and others

started ill-treating her physically and mentally and abusing her

in filthy language. Subsequently, there was a panchayath held

and they had undertaken to mend the ways. Once again

subsequently they started harassing the complainant. Hence,

this complaint came to be filed against the accused persons.

Subsequently, police also filed charge sheet which is under

challenge.

-4-

NC: 2024:KHC:7427
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2023

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits it is

omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The allegation filed

in the FIR does not attract section 498A of IPC and the accused

No.2 filed complaint against the respondent and family

members for illegal detention of the accused No.1 on

06.12.2021. Therefore, this complaint came to be filed as a

counter blast and this petitioner No.1 sustained injuries due to

the assault made by the respondent family. Therefore, prayed

for quashing criminal proceedings.

4. Per contra learned HCGP objected the same. The

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits the petitioner

also is a divorcee and the respondent No.2 is also a divorcee.

Both decided to remarry each other. Subsequently, petitioners

continuously harassed the respondent No2., physically and

mentally and there are ingredients made out in the complaint

as well as in the statement of witnesses for facing the trial

under Section 498A , 504 and 506 of IPC. Hence, prayed for

dismissing the petition.

5. Having heard the arguments perused the records. On

perusal of the same, ofcourse the respondent No.2 is also a
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7427
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2023

divorcee and the petitioner also a divorcee. After some time

petitioner No.2 started harassing and ill treating the respondent

No.2 and abusing her in filthy language. The accused No.3 also

said to be threatened with intimidation and accused No.1 also

started harassing her and all 3 persons continuously harassing

her. Therefore, panchayat also was held and it was advised by

the elders. Later, for some time they kept quite but once again

they started harassing her. The documents produced by

petitioner counsel reveals on 6.12.2021, the petitioner No.2

filed complaint to the police alleging that the respondent No.2

and family members kept the petitioner No.1 in illegal custody

and detained him and also stated he is in house arrest. He said

to be tortured by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said

documents also were produced but the police have not

registered any FIR against respondent No.2. If at all the

respondent No.2 assaulted the complainant petitioner No.1 by

retaining him in illegal custody or whatever way, the petitioner

No.2 could have approached higher police officers or could have

filed private complaint. It is also submitted that the petitioner

No.1 already filed divorce petition. On perusal of the records

and the statement of the complainant and her mother, there is
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7427
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2023

continuous harassment from the side of the petitioners. The

petitioners said to be abused her in filthy language and also

threatened her with dire consequences. There was an ill

treatment by way of verbal abuse of words. The petitioners

said to be abused respondent No.4 by saying that she is having

4 children and it was suppressed by the respondent before the

marriage, due to which the petitioners continuously ill treated

her. Considering the same, I am of the view, it is not a fit case

for quashing charge sheet. The contentions of the petitioners

are available and should take in defense at Trial Court. The

Trial Court has power to presume certain things and also form

inference, but there is no presumption available to this court

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is devoid

of merits.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
CT:SK

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation