SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Puttaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 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