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
Smt. Maithra B N vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7887
CRL.P No. 6406 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6406 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAITHRA B.N
S/O BABU V.S
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT PAVANAGANGA NILAYA
MAHALAKSHMI EXTENSION
3RD CROSS, BATAVADI, TUMKURU
TUMKURU DIST – 572 101
ACTUAL ADDRESS
R/AT NO 1600, 40TH CROSS
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE – 560 041.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
NANDINI MS TUMKURU, REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT. KARUNA V. CHALAPATHI
W/O LOHITH BANDREHALLI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT VENKATADRI NILAYA
8TH MAIN, MALLESHPALYA
NEW TIPPASANDRA POST
BENGALURU – 560 075.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K, ADV., FOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7887
CRL.P No. 6406 of 2023
SRI KEMPARAJU, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT – POLICE IN
SPL.C.NO.276/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 498(a), 323,
324, 354, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, SEC. 3, 4 AND 6(2) OF D.P.
ACT AND 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) AND 3(2)(V-a) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT TUMKUR AND CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
PETITIONERS HEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is filed by accused
no.5 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Spl. Case
No.276/2021 pending before the Court of III Addl. District
Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, arising out of Crime No.34/2018
registered by Women Police Station, Tumakuru, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 420, 147, 417,
354, 379, 504, 506, 143, 146 IPC and Sections 3 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Tumakuru Women Police Station, Tumakuru, have
registered FIR in Crime No.34/2018 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 420, 147, 417, 354, 379, 504, 506,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7887
CRL.P No. 6406 of 2023
143, 146 IPC and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 against six persons on the complaint of respondent no.2
herein. Petitioner herein is arrayed as accused no.5 in the FIR.
After investigation, charge sheet was initially filed for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 353, 504, 506,
143, 147, 149 IPC and Sections 3, 4 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Subsequently, a supplementary charge
sheet was filed invoking the offences punishable under the
provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner who is arrayed as
accused no.5 in the charge sheet is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the married sister of accused no.1 who is the
husband of the complainant. She is residing with her husband
at Bengaluru and she has been falsely implicated only for the
reason that she is the close relative of the complainant’s
husband. He submits that the complainant and accused no.1
were residing in America after marriage and after returning
from America, the complainant has filed a false complaint
implicating all the relatives of accused no.1. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the petition.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7887
CRL.P No. 6406 of 2023
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has
opposed the petition. She submits that there are specific
allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet as well as
in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section
164 Cr.PC by the jurisdictional Magistrate. She submits that the
wound certificate of the complainant and her relatives would go
to show that they were all assaulted by the accused persons
including the petitioner herein. Accordingly, she prays to
dismiss the petition.
6. Learned HCGP has also supported the arguments of the
learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and prays to dismiss the
petition.
7. The material on record would go to show that the
marriage of the complainant with accused no.1 was solemnized
on 05.11.2017. Thereafter, the couple had lived as husband
and wife in America where accused no.1 is working. It appears
that the relationship of the complainant with accused no.1 got
strained in America and they had fought against each other. It
is in this background, the complainant had returned to India in
the month of April 2018. According to the complainant,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7887
CRL.P No. 6406 of 2023
subsequent to her return, she had gone to her in-laws house
for the purpose of getting back her belongings which she had
left in her in-laws house while traveling to America. It is
averred in the complaint that the accused persons named in the
complaint had abused and assaulted the complainant and her
family members on 13.04.2018 when the complainant and her
family members had gone to her in-laws house to bring back
her belongings. Though the alleged incident had taken place on
13.04.2018, the complaint is belatedly lodged on 16.04.2018 at
about 14.30 hours.
8. A perusal of the complaint which is available on record
would go to show that it is a typed complaint and it is dated
13.04.2018. There is no proper explanation for delay of three
days in lodging the typed complaint which was kept ready by
the complainant. The wound certificate of the complainant and
her family members who were allegedly assaulted by the
accused persons on 13.04.2018 is also available on record.
Complainant and her relatives have all suffered only simple
injuries in the incident in question. In the wound certificate of
the complainant, there is an alteration with regard to the date
of incident. In normal circumstances, in the wound certificate,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7887
CRL.P No. 6406 of 2023
name of all the accused persons who allegedly assaulted the
victim will not be mentioned. However, in the wound
certificates which are belatedly obtained in this case by the
prosecution, the name of all the accused is mentioned.
9. Petitioner has raised a contention that she is a married
lady residing with her husband at Bengaluru. She has produced
her Aadhaar card in support of her contention. The said
Aadhaar card is issued in the year 2011 and from the perusal of
the same, it is very clear that petitioner is married and she is
residing in Bengaluru.
10. From a reading of the complaint dated 13.04.2018 which
was lodged on 16.04.2018, it is seen that omnibus allegations
are made against the petitioner. Further, no allegation is made
in the original complaint which would attract the offences
punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Attrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the initial charge sheet was
filed only for the offences punishable under the provisions of
the Indian Penal Court and Dowry Prohibition Act. It is only
based on the subsequent statement made by the complainant,
a supplementary charge sheet was filed invoking the provisions
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:7887
CRL.P No. 6406 of 2023
of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the
petitioner in the present petition is required to be allowed.
Accordingly, the following order:
11. Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Spl. Case
No.276/2021 pending before the Court of III Addl. District
Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, arising out of Crime No.34/2018
registered by Women Police Station, Tumakuru, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 420, 147, 417,
354, 379, 504, 506, 143, 146 IPC and Sections 3 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in so far as it relates to the
petitioner is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
