1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3593/2013
BETWEEN:
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.
2
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,
Bengaluru.
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)
AND:
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,
3
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:
ORDER
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
4
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
unrepresented.
5. Considered the submission and perused the
records.
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
5
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,
6
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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV/ssb
