SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Soubhagya vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO.8326 OF 2017

BETWEEN:
1. SOUBHAGYA,
W/O UMASHANKAR
AGED 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.53, 10TH MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 040
(PERMANENT ADDRESS)
AND
SOUBHAGYA,
TALUK OFFICE ROAD,
T NARASIPURA TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT
(AS PER COMPLAINT VERSION)

2. UMASHANKAR,
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED 56 YEARS,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
R/AT NO.53, 10TH MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 040.
(PERMANENT ADDRESS)
AND
UMASHANKAR,
TALUK OFFICE ROAD,
T NARASIPURA TOWN,
2

MYSURU DISTRICT
(AS PER COMPLAINT VERSION) …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.Y S SHIVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY T NARASIPURA P.S.,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. SHANTHESH S,
S/O LATE SHAMBHAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT SHAMBHULINGESHWARA NILAYA,
3RD ROSS, HEMAVATHI EXTN.,
BEHIND GANAPATHI PARK,
K R PET – 571 426. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PURSUANT TO
REGISTRATION OF A CASE IN C.C. NO.163/2017 OF T
NARASIPURA POLICE STATION VIDE ORDER DATED
17.04.2017 (ARISING OUT OF CR. NO.08/2017) FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) AND 302 OF
IPC AND SEC. 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROTECTION ACT
NOW COMMITTED TO COURT OF SESSIOINS, MYSURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent State. Perused the records.

2. The petitioners who are arraigned as

accused Nos.5 and 6 have approached this Court

seeking quashing of C.C. No.163/2017 on the file of the

JMFC Court, T Narasipura which is now committed to

the Court of Sessions. However, the case registered

before the Sessions Court, the number is not available

to this Court. It is the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the accused Nos.5 and 6

who are the petitioners herein are the close relatives of

the husband of the deceased i.e., accused No.1 by name

Lingaraju @ Rajanna. It is contended by the learned

counsel that only because the accused Nos.5 and 6 are

relatives of the accused No.1 without any allegations
4

against them a false case has been foisted against them.

The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to

the alleged diary written by the deceased which is

produced before this Court which are the certified xerox

copies which is running to number of pages. Even the

learned counsel submitted that if the entire diary is

read she has not made any allegations against the

present petitioners. Therefore, he pleads before this

Court that proceedings are liable to be quashed.

3. It is seen from the charge sheet which is the

facing sheet produced before this Court, which is not

supported by the statement of witnesses recorded by the

police and as well as the post mortem report of the

deceased and other materials. However, the operative

portion shows that due to the ill treatment and

harassment of all the accused persons the deceased i.e.,

wife of the first accused by name Tejaswini has
5

committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan

in the house. Inspite of that the police have invoked the

provisions under Section 304B, 302 read with Section

34 IPC along with Section 498A and Sections 3, 4 and 6

of the Dowry Prohibition Act. What are all the materials

that the police have collected is not placed before the

Court for consideration. Even for the purpose of

considering whether there is any case made out against

the accused it is not the operative portion of the charge

sheet only requires to be considered by the Court.

Virtually the Court has to exercise the powers as

contemplated under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for

which the Court has to examine the entire materials on

record to find out whether any case is made out, even

semblance of material is available to frame charges

against the accused.

6

4. Under the above said circumstances when it

is only allegations made against in the charge sheet is

available before this Court, bereft of the statements of

the witnesses and other documentary evidence collected

by the police, in my opinion, this Court is helpless and

handicapped to pass appropriate orders in this regard.

Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner has to approach

the trial Court by filing appropriate application for their

discharge. In that eventuality the Court can atleast

weigh the materials to find out whether there is any

strong allegations made against the petitioners so as to

frame charges against them otherwise the Court is at

liberty to discharge the petitioners. With these

observations in my opinion the petition is liable to be

dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
ykl

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh