IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3281 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RAGHUNATHAN PILLAI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. SMT.KUMARI
W/O RAGHUNATHAN PILLAI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
NO.7, 3RD BLOCK
BALAJI RESIDENCY
NEAR SADHAN SCHOOL
RESHME NAGARA
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
BANGALORE – 560 062. …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN M.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY KAGGALIPURA P.S.,
KAGGALIPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE – 560 062
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SRI P.UNNIKRISHNAN
S/O NARAYAN TARAGAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.202, 3RD FLOOR
2
14TH BLOCK, HSR LAYOUT
BANGALORE – 560 102. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973,
PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.1405/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
C.J.M., BENGALURU AND CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIME
NO.171/2014 BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU WITH REGARDING TO THE OFFENCE P/U/S
306 AND 498A OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR ADMISSION
ON THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: –
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused
the records.
2. The brief factual matrix that emerges
from the records are that, the 1st respondent police
have laid a charge sheet against the petitioners for
the offences under Section 498A and 306 R/w
Section 34 of IPC making allegations that the
deceased Asha was given in marriage to accused No.1
3
on 3.5.2012 and thereafter the accused No.1 to 3 and
the deceased started living at Kadarenahalli,
Bengaluru. Thereafter, they shifted themselves to
Balaji-Residency Apartment. It is alleged that the
accused persons have been ill treating and harassing
her by not without providing food to her and also
raising objections to her activities in cooking food etc.
Being frustrated due to the misconduct of the
accused persons on 3.10.2014 the said lady
committed suicide in the house of the accused. On
these allegations, the police in fact have examined as
many as 16 witnesses and lodged a charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners seriously contends before this Court that,
there are very causal and general allegations made
against the petitioners and there is no specific details
have been given with regard to the date and time for
ill treatment and harassing etc. He further contends
4
that when there is no specific allegation made that
the petitioners were not providing food to the said
lady and also always abusing her with reference to
her conduct in cooking etc., and which is not
supported by other materials on record, the
proceedings have to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel has cited several rulings
in this regard. The Apex Court in the case of Geeta
Mehrotra and Another /vs./ State of Uttar
Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC
741, has observed that where large number of family
members had been included in FIR by casually
mentioning their names and contents of FIR does not
disclose their active involvement, cognizance taken
against them would not be justified. In another
ruling reported in 2005 Crl. L.J. 1737 (1) – Netai
Dutta /vs./ State of West Bengal, the Apex Court
has observed that quashing of criminal proceedings,
5
the petitioner charged for offence under Section 306
of IPC. No reference of any act or incident in the
alleged suicide note, whereby the accused has
committed any willful act or omission or intentionally
aided or instigated the deceased for committing the
act of suicide. Contents of alleged suicide note do not
in any way make out any offence against accused.
5. The above said two cases have been
decided on the basis of the peculiar facts and
circumstances involved in that particular cases. The
principles laid down by the Supreme Court is that
after perusing the entire materials on record, if the
Court is of the opinion that even on prima-facie
taking their face value, the materials are accepted,
they will not constitute any offence at all, then only
Court can quash such proceedings.
6
6. In (2012) 9 SCC 460 – Amit Kapoor /vs./
Ramesh Chander and another, the Apex Court has
observed that quashing of a charge sheet is an
exception to the rule of continuous prosecution.
Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court
should be more inclined to permit continuation of
prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial
stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the
records with a view to decide admissibility and
reliability of the documents or records but is an
opinion formed prima-facie. Therefore, applying
above said principles of the Apex Court so far as this
case is concerned there are allegations that the
petitioners are responsible for the death of the
deceased and their overtacts that is not providing
food is the root cause to the deceased committing the
suicide. In the above said circumstance, I do not find
any strong reason to quash the proceedings. Hence,
petition is rejected. Any observation made by this
7
Court shall not persuade the trial Court in any
manner. The petitioner is also at liberty to make
necessary application for their discharge if advised,
before the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KLY/