SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri A Lakshmipathy vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 May, 2019








1. Sri. A. Lakshmipathy,
S/o. H.A. Veerabasappachar,
Aged 80 years,
# 2713/1, 2nd Cross,
MCC B Block,
Davangere – 577 004.

2. Smt. Shamala,
W/o. A. Lakshmipathy,
Aged 72 years,
# 2713/1 2nd Cross, MCC B Block,
Davangere – 577 004.

3. Smt. Pushpa Rudrachar,
W/o. H.V. Rudrachar,
Aged about 60 years,
# 3758/31p 2nd Main 2nd Cross,
Swamy Vivekananda Badavane,
Davangere – 577 004.

4. Sri. G. Prakesh,
S/o. C. Gangadhrachar,
Aged about 53 years,
# 550/1 Saraswathi Nagar,
Davangare – 577 004.

5. Smt. K. Dakshayamma,
W/o. Sri. G. Prakesh,
Aged about 52 years,
# 550/1 Saraswathi Nagar,
Davangare – 577 004.

6. Sri. K. Lakshmipathy,
S/o. Kenchappa,
Aged about 61 years,
Vishwakarma Shree, B.B.Street,
Near K.R. Pet Post Office,
Shimoga – 577 201.

7. Smt. K. Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o. Siddalingchar,
Aged about 54 years,
# Chandrappa Layout, M.S. Palya,

8. Smt. K. Savitramma,
W/o. K.M. Poorvachar,
Aged about 48 years,
C/o. Kalvathi, Buddha Nagar,
Milagatta 1st Cross,
Shimoga – 577 201. … Petitioners

(By Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G, Advocate for P3 to P8)


1. State of Karnataka
By it’s Mahila Police,
Shimoga – 577 202.

2. Smt. Sharadamma,
W/o. K. Shivakumarachari,
R/at No.13, DRA Police Quarters,

Shimoga – 577 201. … Respondents

(By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1,
R2 served and unrepresented)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR dated 10.05.2013 in
Cr.No.54/2013 registered by respondent No.1 pending on
the file of the J.M.F.C. (II Court), Shimoga vide Annexure-A.

This Criminal petition coming on for Hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:


This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.54/2013 registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 355, 506,

114 R/w 34 of SectionIPC. During the pendency of this petition,

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are reported to have died.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.3

to 8 (accused Nos.5, 7, 6, 2, 9 and 8, respectively) would

submit that the averments made in the complaint do not

disclose commission of the alleged offences by the

petitioners. All the allegations are directed only against

accused No.1 and therefore, prosecution of the petitioners

for the alleged offences is a clear case of abuse of process

of Court.

3. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1

has argued in support of the impugned action contending

that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie

disclose commission of criminal offences and the matter is

under investigation and hence, there is no case for

quashment of the proceedings.

4. Respondent No.2 is duly served and


5. Considered the submission and perused the


6. It is not in dispute that the marriage of

respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was performed in the

year 1989. In the wedlock they have two children. The

complaint came to be lodged on 10.05.2013. In the

complaint it is specifically stated that since about seven

months earlier to the date of lodging the complaint, her

husband was residing in the house of his sister-Savithri

(accused No.8). Insofar as the petitioners are concerned,

the only allegation made in the complaint is that about six

months back all the petitioners herein came to her house

and without any reason assaulted her with hands and

abused her. The complaint is silent with regard to the

specific date and time when the alleged incident took place.

The allegations are bald and the complainant has not

disclosed any specific overt acts against anyone of the

petitioners. It is also not the case of the respondent No.2

that on account of the alleged assault she has sustained any

injury necessitating treatment in the hospital. The manner

in which these allegations are made against the petitioners

gives an indication that the petitioners have been implicated

in the alleged offences solely out of spite and malice

apparently to settle score with her husband against whom

she has serious matrimonial differences. The allegations

made in the complaint even if accepted on their face value

do not make out any semblance of offence by the

petitioners herein. Under the said circumstances,

continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be

nothing but an abuse of process of Court.

For the above reasons, petition is allowed.

Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime

No.54/2013 are hereby quashed.




Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation