SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Manjunath B K vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Crl.P.2411/2021

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2411 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MANJUNATH. B.K.
S/O NAGAPPA. B.K.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: BENNEHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE – 583127.

2. SMT. NILAMMA. B.K.
W/O MANJUNATH. B.K.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: BENNEHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE – 583127.

3. SRI RAJU. B.K.
S/O MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: BENNEHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE – 583127.

4. SMT. DEEPA
W/O SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: ITTIGI ROAD, MYDUR,
DAVANAGERE – 583127.
Crl.P.2411/2021

2

5. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O KARIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: ITTIGI ROAD, MYDUR,
DAVANAGERE – 583127. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NITHIN. R., ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY: SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU – 560009.

2. SMT. SAHANA
W/O NAVEEN B.K.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.99,
SILICON SUN CITY LAYOUT,
HELALIGE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE – 560099. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SUNIL JAMAKHANDI, ADV. FOR R2 [ABSENT])

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.8/2021
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 307, 114, 504, 506, 149 OF
IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND
JMFC, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AT
ANNEXURE-A.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.P.2411/2021

3

ORDER

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 6 in

Crime No.08/2021 registered by the Suryanagar Police

Station, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 114, 504, 506 read

with Section 149 of IPC which is now pending on the file

of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Anekal,

Bangalore Rural District, have approached this court with

a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case

as against them.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for

the purpose of disposal of this petition are:

The second respondent-complainant had

approached the Suryanagar Police Station on 13.01.2021

and lodged a complaint contending that her marriage

with the first accused was solemnized on 12.05.2014 and

at the time of marriage, as per the demand of the accused

persons, her parents had paid cash with gold ornaments,
Crl.P.2411/2021

4

silver ornaments and other valuables and also the

marriage expenses were met by them. However, after

some time, her husband started troubling her and he

started demanding dowry. She has stated in her

complaint that after marriage she started residing in a

rented house at Chandapura in Anekal, Bangalore Rural

District along with her husband. She has stated that

with regard to the ill-treatment meted out on her by her

husband, she had complained to her in-laws, but they

have not advised him and on the other hand, they have

supported him. She has stated that her husband was

consuming alcohol and used to abuse and assault her

and also threaten her with dire consequence to her life.

She has also stated that her husband had failed to

maintain her and her child and also did not provide the

basic amenities, which were required to lead a decent life.

She has also stated that in addition to torturing her

physically and mentally, her husband has also sexually
Crl.P.2411/2021

5

tortured her. It is also stated in the complaint that at the

instance of the in-laws, her husband had tried “black

magic” on the complainant with an intention to cause

mental and physical torture to her. It is further stated

that her husband has taken her minor son away from her

without her permission and subsequently he has also

assaulted her causing injuries. On 07.01.2021 her

husband abused her and also tried to kill her by

throttling her neck. However, she escaped from his

clutches and reached her relatives house and

thereafterwards called her parents. On the basis of this

complaint, FIR in Crime No.08/2021 was registered by

the Suryanagar Police against the petitioners and the first

accused-husband.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

admittedly the first accused and the complainant were

residing at Chandapura in Anekal taluk, Bengaluru Rural

District. The petitioners-1, 2 and 3 are the residents of
Crl.P.2411/2021

6

Harappanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District while

petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the residents of Hassan

District. He submits that even in the FIR, the address of

the petitioners are shows as residents of Harappanahalli

Taluk and Hassan respectively. He submits that the

petitioners have nothing to do with the marital dispute

between the first accused and the complainant and only

for the reason that they are the close relatives of the

accused No.1, the petitioners have been falsely implicated

in the case. He submits that there are no allegations of

specific overt acts to attract the alleged offences against

the petitioners and the allegations against the petitioners

are all omnibus in nature. He submits that from the

entire reading of the complaint, the only allegation is with

regard to the incident that has taken place on 07.01.2021

and as per the averments made in the complaint,

allegations with regard to the incident that had taken

place on 07.01.2021 is only as against the husband. He
Crl.P.2411/2021

7

submits that, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are Teachers in

Government School at Hassan and pendency of the

criminal case has been causing them untold hardship

and injury.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition

submits that the complainant has made an allegation as

against all the accused persons and investigation is under

progress. Since the case is registered for cognizable

offences, exercising the powers under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. is unwarranted and he prays to dismiss the

petition.

5. I have carefully considered the rival arguments

and also perused the material available on record.

6. From the averments made in the complaint, it is

very clear that immediately after the marriage, accused

No.1- husband and the complainant were residing

separately in a rented house at Chandapura, Anekal
Crl.P.2411/2021

8

Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Further, the perusal of

the FIR it would go to show that admittedly the petitioner

Nos.1 to 3 herein are the residents of Harappanahalli

Taluk, Davanagere District while petitioner Nos.4 and 5

are the residents of Hassan District. From the reading of

the complaint averments, it is seen that there are no

specific overt acts alleged by the complainant as against

any of the petitioners herein. The allegations against the

petitioners are all omnibus in nature and the only specific

allegation made in the complaint is as against the first

accused-husband.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Tabrez Khan alias Guddu Others -vs- State of Uttar

Pradesh Another1 and Seenivasan -vs- The State by

Inspector of Police and Another2 has held that if

criminal proceedings is initiated against the family

1
(2019)4 SCC 615
2
(2019) 8 SCC 642
Crl.P.2411/2021

9

members without there being any specific overt acts

against them, the same cannot be permitted to be

continued. In the absence of specific allegation against

the relatives of the husband and also if there are

necessary materials to show that the said accused

persons are residing separately, the initiation of criminal

proceedings as against them merely for the reason that

they are the near relatives of the husband is bad in law.

The aforesaid judgments squarely apply to the facts of the

case on hand. Even in the present case, there are no

specific averments as against the petitioners herein so as

to attract the alleged offences against them. Further,

admittedly the petitioners are residing separately. The

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Harappanahalli

Taluk, Davanagere District, which is at a distance of

about 250 kilometers from Bangalore while the petitioner

Nos.4 and 5 are residing at Hassan District, which is at a

distance of 200 kilometers from Bangalore.

Crl.P.2411/2021

10

8. Having regard to these materials available on

record, the complaint averments prima facie do not make

out a case against the petitioners for the alleged offences.

Continuation of the impugned proceedings against the

petitioners only for the reason that they are the near

relatives of the first accused-husband would not only

cause them harship, but it would also amount to abuse of

process of law.

9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion

that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, it is

just and necessary to quash the entire proceedings as

against the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following;

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire

proceedings pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.08/2021

registered by the Suryanagar Police Station, Anekal,

Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable
Crl.P.2411/2021

11

under Sections 498A, 307, 114, 504, 506 read with

Section 149 of IPC now pending on the file of II Additional

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Anekal, Bangalore

Rural District, insofar it relates to the petitioners, is

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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