Karnataka High Court Shri. Bhojappa S/O. … vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014 BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 100551/2014 BETWEEN:

SHRI.BHOJAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA KUGANAVAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE R/O. KURUPALIS COMPOUND,

HALIYAL NAKA, DHARWAD

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S. B. NAIK FOR SRI.K L PATIL, ADV.) AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH NESARGI PS BELGAUM

R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH.

2. SMT.RAJASHRI W/O. MAHADEV KUGANAVAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. MADANABAVI, TQ: BAILHONGAL

DIST: BELGAUM

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V. M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2) —

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.32/2014 OF NESARGI P.S. AGAINST THIS PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 342, 504, 506, 109 R/W. 34 OF IPC & SECs. 3 & 4 OF D.P. ACT, (SOFAR THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor.

2. A lady by name Smt. Rjashri Mahadev Kuganavar – respondent No.2 herein has lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 504, 506, 109 R/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The Police have registered a case in Crime No.32/2014 and they are investigating the matter. At this stage, the present petition is filed on the ground that, even the entire allegations are taken into consideration as 3

mentioned in the First Information Report, only one sentence is spoken to in the First Information Report insofar as this petitioner is concerned, that he has instigated the husband of the 2nd respondent.

4. Except that one sentence, as I have meticulously perused the contents of the First Information Report, no other allegations are there against this petitioner. There is nothing on record in the First Information Report to show that, what exactly is the instigation made or the offence abated by this petitioner, and whether on the basis of such instigation, the husband has given any ill-treatment or harassment is not specifically mentioned. Even the said allegations is translated into evidence, in my opinion, that is totally insufficient to draw an inference that this petitioner has also participated in ill-treating and harassing the complainant or abated the offence.

5. In this regard, it is worthy to mention a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and 4

Anr., wherein the Apex Court has held that “mere casual reference of the names of the accused in the FIR is not sufficient to take cognizance and complaint against the appellant is liable to be quashed.”

6. In my opinion, the above said ruling is aptly applicable to the present case. In the present case also, it is evident, a casual reference has been made pertaining to the name of this petitioner. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 also, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the guidelines that,

“where allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, in these circumstances, the High Court can quash the proceedings.”

5

7. In view of the above said factual matrix and also the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said cases, I am of the opinion, the petitioner has made a good case for quashing of the proceedings, particularly against him. Hence I pass the following order: ORDER

The petition is allowed. The investigation and all proceedings in Crime No.32/2014 on the file of Nesaragi Police is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab/-