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
