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
Shrikanth Shivshanker Halanna And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 28 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200827 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRIKANTH SHIVSHANKER HALANNA
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
H.NO.20/1, SUBHASH CHOWK,
PEERPASH BUNGLAW,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
2. SHAKUNTALA SHIVSHANKER HALANNA
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
H.NO.20/1, SUBHASH CHOWK,
PEERPASHA BUNGLAW,
Digitally signed BASAVAKALYAN,
by KHAJAAMEEN DIST. BIDAR-585327.
L MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH 3. BASWARAJ SHIVSHANKER HALANNA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
H.NO.15/66, SUBHASH CHOWK,
PEERPASHA BUNGLAW,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
4. ARUNA W/O SHARANABASAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
SHIV MANDIR JAVAL-33, RAJIV NAGAR,
SHOLAPUR CITY,(MAHARASHTRA)-413006.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
5. JYOTI W/O GANGADHAR MANURE
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
H.NO.4-207/A, HOLIKATTA MAKTAMPUR,
KALABURAGI CITY-585101.
6. SHASHIKALA
W/O CHANDRAKANTA KHADI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
E/16/A/5, HASNAPUR, RANGAMPETH,
YADGIR-585201.
7. ANAVEER SHIVSHANKER HALANNA
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO.22-20/1, BUS STAND ROAD,
SUBHASH CHOWK,
PEERPASHA BUNGLAW,
BASAVAKALYAN
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
8. LAXMI ANAVEER HALANNA
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
H.NO.22-20/1, BUS STAND ROAD,
SUBHASH CHOWK,
PEERPASHA BUNGLAW,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
9. PRABHAVATI W/O SURYAKANTH,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOMEMAKER,
H.NO.15-66-1, SUBHASH CHOWK,
PEERPASHA BUNGLAW,
BASAVAKALYAN
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
10. RAJKUMAR S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
LIG-58, ADARSH NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585105.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
BASAVAKALYAN TOWN P.S.
RPTD. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. SMT. TEJASWINI
W/O SHRIKANTH HALANNA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NA, H.NO.20/1,
SUBHASH CHOWK, PEERPASHA BUNGLOW,
BASAVAKALYAN,
BIDAR-585327.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K. S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, QUASH THE PROSECUTION
LAUNCHED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C NO.06/2022 ON
THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BASAVAKALYAN
ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.133/2021 OF BASAVAKALAYAN TOWN
POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 341, 504, 498-A, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
Though respondent No.2 had appeared through her
counsel, there was no representation on her behalf.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
2. Accused Nos. 1 to 10 have approached this
Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the
FIR and the chargesheet registered against them in CC
No.06/2022 (arising out of Crime No.133/2021) of
Basavakalyana Town P.S., for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 498A, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The complainant who is the wife of accused
No.1 filed a complaint alleging that the marriage of the
complainant and accused No.1 Srikanth took place on
07-12-2014 and thereafter, they were blessed with two
daughters. It was alleged that for two years, the
relationship was cordial and they did not get any child
during that period and therefore, accused No.2, the
mother-in-law of the complainant and others had started
mental and physical harassment to her. It was further
alleged that the husband and his family members had
demanded gold at the time of baby showers of the
complainant and later, the mother-in-law was insisting
that clothes and other requirement had to be met by the
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
parents of the complainant. There were tauntings by the
complainant and the gold belonging to the complainant
was given to the other relatives of the accused. The
complaint narrates several incidents like the complainant
was made to stay in the room and accused used to state
that accused No.1 would marry another lady and that the
complainant would be killed by using rat poison. It was
also alleged that there were also harassment regarding the
phone calls and accused No.2 was insisting that the
complainant should call the sisters of accused No.1. It is
also alleged that whenever the children are suffering from
fever, accused No.1 used to bring medicine prescribed by
the Doctors and he was not allowing the complainant to
give Ayurveda treatment to the children. Several such
incidents were mentioned in the complaint and it was
alleged that since 7 years, such harassment was given and
in the said tension her father succumbed to death.
Therefore, she had sought for action against all the
accused. After registration of the case, the Investigating
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
Officer had investigated the matter and ultimately, filed
the chargesheet against accused Nos. 1 to 10.
4. Now accused Nos. 1 to 10 have approached this
Court stating that there are no discernoble and specific
allegations against these petitioners which would
constitute an offence. It is contended that the complainant
makes omnibus allegations against all the accused and
specific incident of harassment or assault or any such acts
committed by accused are not narrated either by the
complainant or any of the witnesses cited by the
prosecution. Therefore, it is contended that the case
against the petitioners be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for State has
submitted that the complaint clearly mention the
harassment meted out by accused Nos.1 and 2 and that
the several incidents narrated by the complainant in the
complaint as well as her statement before the police
clearly show that it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who were
harassing the complainant. Though there is a scanty
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
material as against accused Nos. 3 to 10, the statements
of the witnesses show that these accused were also
supporting accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, it is submitted
that there are no reasons to quash the case against the
accused/petitioners.
6. It is relevant to note that the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan kausar @ Sonam
and others Vs. State of Bihar and other1 considers the
various judgments rendered by the Apex Court concerning
an offence under Section 498A of IPC, right from the
judgment in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others Vs.
State of UP, the Apex court has chronicled the latest
judgment in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. The State of
Telangana 2 and ultimately, in para 22 of its judgment it
holds as below:
” 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific
role attributed to the accused appellants, it would
be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through1
2022 AIAR (Criminal) 338
2
2018 (14) SCC 452
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022the tribulations of a trial, i.e. general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court
in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to
an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon
the accused, and such an exercise must therefore
be discouraged. ”
7. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of
Section 498 of IPC are quite often misused and minor
differences between the couple are being brought to the
Court unnecessarily by roping in all the family members of
the husband, who are staying elsewhere than the place of
stay of the couple. In fact, there would not be any
evidence to show that the relatives of the husband had
also a role in the alleged dispute between the husband and
wife. The differences between the couple may be for
various reasons, but such reasons are camouflaged for
reasons which really did not happen so that the case is
brought within the purview of 498A of IPC. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason for the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
dispute between the husband and wife is that, the couple
were staying at Mumbai and accused No.1 was working as
a Software Engineer. During COVID times, they had
returned to Basava Kalyana and when their child was
about six months old, the mother of the complainant died
at Bangalore, due to COVID. Accused No.1 did not agree
that the complainant and the children should travel to
Bangalore for the last rituals during COVID and that was
the reason, which resulted in the present complaint.
8. Be that as it may, it is a matter to be
considered at the time of the trial. What is relevant to note
in the present case is that, the FIR which is handwritten
by the complainant mainly allege that the harassment was
meted out by accused No.1 and 2. The involvement of
accused Nos. 3 to 10 is remote. Accused Nos. 3 to 10 were
not residing at Mumbai where the couple lived. It is
evident that accused Nos. 3 to 10 are the residents of
Basava Kalyan, Hubli, Gulbarga, Rangampet and such
other places. None of them were residing at the place of
– 10 –
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
residence of accused No.1. Therefore, the involvement of
accused Nos. 3 to 10 in the alleged harassment meted out
to the complainant is not forthcoming either from the FIR
or from the investigation papers. Such involvement of
accused Nos. 3 to 10 is only in the form of omnibus
allegations against them and specific details of their
harassment is not narrated.
9. Therefore, in the light of the observations made
by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan kausar @
Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and other
referred supra, it would not be proper to continue the
prosecution of accused Nos.3 to 10. The gist of the
allegations made in the complaint with specific details is
only available as against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore,
the petition deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in part.
– 11 –
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651
CRL.P No. 200827 of 2022
(ii) The proceedings in Crime No 133/2021
registered by Basavakalyan Town P.S. for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 504, 498A read with
Section 34 of IPC now pending in CC No.6/2022 on the
file of Civil Judge and JMFXC, Basavakalyan, so far as
petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 are concerned is quashed.
(iii) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos. 1 and 2
shall face the trial before the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
CT:PK
