1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2529 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Puttaraju,
S/o late Channashetty,
Aged about 48 years,
Working as Revenue Inspector,
Dr. Lohia Road,
Vidyanagar,
Hassan.
2. Smt. Sumithra
@ Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o Puttaraju,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at Dr. Lohia Road,
Vidyanagar,
Hassan.
3. Sri. Somashekar,
S/o late Ramakrishna Shetty,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at Dr. Lohia Road,
Vidyanagar,
Hassan.
2
4. Smt. Jayalakshmamma,
W/o late Ramakrishna Shetty,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at Dr. Lohia Road,
Vidyanagar,
Hassan.
…Petitioners
(By Sri. Madhav Kashyap, Advocate
for Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
by Extension Police Station,
Hassan City
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Smt. Veena @ Lakshmi Devi,
W/o Palaksha,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Gowrikoppalu,
Behind School for Hearing
Impaired, Vidyanagar,
Hassan Taluk District.
…Respondents
(By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1
Sri. Kiran J., Advocate for M/s. Shetty and
Hegde Associates for R2)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 10.01.2012
passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC,
3
Hassan in C.C.No.50/2012 thereby taking cognizance
against the petitioners and issuing summons against the
petitioners in the above case.
This Criminal petition coming on for Final Hearing,
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II
for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioners are the relatives of the
complainant, namely, respondent No.2. Respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before the Hassan Extension Police
on 18.07.2011, alleging that her marriage was performed
on 18.06.1997 and she has a son aged about 13 years.
Since 2 years, she has been residing at Gowrikoppalu,
Vidyanagar, Hassan. According to her, since about 7
years, her husband had developed illicit relationship with
one C.R. Vishala and in this backdrop, he was ill-treating
and harassing the complainant and he was not paying
4
any maintenance either to her or to her son. Hence, she
was constrained to approach the Karnataka Lokayuktha
seeking redressal of her grievance. Having learnt about
this fact, her husband rang up to her father and
threatened him to withdraw the complaint.
3. The only allegation made against the present
petitioners is that at the instance of these petitioners, the
complainant’s husband has been ill-treating and
harassing her. The complaint lacks the particulars or
details of the alleged instances of harassment or ill-
treatment. Except making general and bald allegation in
the complaint that her husband called her father over
phone and issued threats to her, the time and date of the
alleged phone call is not forthcoming in the complaint.
Be that as it may. As against the present petitioners,
there is not even a remote allegation to attract the
ingredients of Section 498A or 506 of IPC.
5
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has laid
emphasis on the further statement dated 18.07.2011
given by respondent No.2, before the Investigating
Officer. I have perused this statement. Even in this
further statement, there are no allegations whatsoever
attracting the ingredients of the offence punishable
under Sections 498A or 506 of IPC insofar as the present
petitioners are concerned. Contrary to the allegations
made in the FIR, in this further statement, she has
alleged that the petitioners herein were instigating
respondent No.2 not to give her any share in the family
properties. This allegation apart from being an
afterthought, even if accepted as true, does not satisfy
the ingredients of either Section 498A or Section 506 of
IPC. Thus viewed from any angle, the action initiated
against the petitioners is a blatant misuse and a total
abuse of the criminal process. The said proceedings, if
allowed to continue, will result in failure of justice.
Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to
6
quash the impugned proceedings. For the above reasons,
the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.209/2011
and all consequent proceedings arisen there-from
including the proceedings pending in C.C.No.50/2012 on
the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC,
Hassan, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners,
namely accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. Proceeding
shall continue only against accused No.1 therein.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mds/kps
