Karnataka High Court Smt.Jayashree W/O. Srinivas … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11775/2013
W/O. SRINIVAS HARLAPUR
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE AT SYNDICATE BANK
R/O PLOT NO.97, SHIRUR PARK
I-STAGE, 4THMAIN, VIDYANAGAR
HUBLI. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI M B GUNDAWADE, ADV.)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
BY PSI, SUB URBAN PS
2. PREETI W/O. PREETAM PANDIT
R/O. NO. 304, SHARADA HOMES
NEAR KEB OFFICE, SAPTAPUR
DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI S.R. HEGDE AND ASSOCIATES FOR R2) ******
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER, ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AT CR.NO.282/2013, BY THE SUB-URBAN POLICE, DHARWAD, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 498-A, 323, 307, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.PC seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.282/2013 pending on the file of Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad for the 3
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who drew my attention to the facts of this particular case. He contended that the petitioner who has arrayed as A2 in the above said Crime has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is further alleged that there is no specific overt acts or allegations made against this petitioner. Vague allegations are made against this petitioner in order to wreck vengeance. Even if the entire complaint averments are translated into evidence at this stage, it will not constitute any offence against the petitioner. The conduct of the respondent No.2 also shows that she has made the entire allegations against her husband but in order to implicate one of the relative of the 4
husband, she must have chosen the present petitioner. Therefore, some vague and passing remarks are made against the petitioner. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings, otherwise it amounts to abuse of process of law.
3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 – complainant contended that specific allegations are made in the complaint against this petitioner also.
4. Now, the question is whether these allegations are true or not and this has to be thrashed out by means of full fledged investigation. If the police have come to the conclusion that those allegations are false and vague, they are at liberty to file B-summary report against the petitioner. Even otherwise, if the allegations are translated into evidence, they constitute an offence 5
of abatement for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, at this stage the investigations cannot be scuttled down. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petition.
5. I have carefully perused the complaint averments. It is alleged that in the year 2006, the marriage between the complainant and the accused No.1 by name Sri Preetam Pandit S/o. Nagabhushan Pandit, took place precisely on 14.12.2006. Thereafter, they lived happily but for some time later, in the year 2007, Accused No.1 addicted to alcohol and started ill- treating and harassing respondent No.2. There are specific allegations made against this petitioner in the complaint, wherein it is specifically alleged that the petitioner being the maternal aunt of the accused No.1 6
and she is always instigating accused No.1 to ill-treat and harass this respondent No.2 and on such abatement, Accused No.1 i.e. the husband of respondent No.2 used to consume Alcohol and assault respondent No.2. It is further alleged that the father of respondent No.2 have advised the accused Nos.1 & 2 in spite of that they he did not desist from ill-treating and harassing respondent No.2. Particularly, it is alleged that on 17.2.2013 while she was residing at Malamaddi Jogalekar compound, in Dharwad, accused No.1 at the instigation of the petitioner, after consuming Alcohol in order to kill respondent No.2 assaulted with his hands and other house hold articles and also tried to throttle the neck of the complainant and in fact some of the witnesses came there and resolved the dispute and rescued the complainant. Ultimately, it is alleged that on most of the occasions, accused No.1 has assaulted, 7
ill-treated and harassed respondent No.2 at the instigation of this petitioner, and this petitioner was very much present and abated A1 most of the times. Therefore, she requested the police to investigate the allegations made against her. The allegations made against the petitioner, particularly the allegations pertaining to the incident dated 17.2.2013 attract penal provisions as noted above. In the above said circumstances, when the matter is at threshold, whether the contents of the complaint are true or not and also about the conduct of the complainant in filing the said complaint, whether in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, all these things cannot be considered by this Court by merely reading the complaint averments, that has to be in my opinion to be find out by the police by means of conducting thorough 8
investigation. Therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere by quashing the entire proceedings at the threshold.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited a ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“Genuine cases of dowry harassment matter of serious concern but exaggerated version of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints – Allegations to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection, especially against husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant – Need for serious re-look at 9
entire provision by Parliament recommended.
In another ruling reported in (2013)2 SCC (Cri) 337 between ASHISH DIXIT AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“Inherent powers of High Court can be exercised where – Abuse of process of Court is established – Impropriety – Respondent complainant apart from arraying her husband and parents-in-law, including all and sundry persons as accused, even a tenant whose name was not known to her – Held, High Court should at least have directed that petition be confined to her husband and parents-in-law and should not have allowed impleadment and proceedings as against A2 to A12 quashed.’
7. Looking to the above said rulings, in fact, the Court has to take care in order to ascertain whether the complaint is vexatious or frivolous or it is only filed in order to wreck vengeance against the accused persons. The entire materials should be available to the Court in order to ascertain the facts which are stated above. By simply reading the complaint averments, the Court cannot come to any conclusion that complaint is filed with vengeance or in order to cause inconvenience or harassment to the petitioner. Unless, the court has complete picture of the case with the entire material facts on record, the court may not be in a position to come to any conclusion with incomplete materials.
8. Even if the investigation is allowed, in my opinion, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and that if the police come to the 11
conclusion after due investigation that the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless, are not sufficient to put the accused/petitioner on trial, they may file B-Report before the Court or even if they file the final report, the jurisdictional Magistrate has to peruse the entire materials and charge sheet to find out whether there are any materials to take cognizance against the petitioner and for issuing summons against the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, it may not be proper to scuttle down the investigation without proper materials on record. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/-