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/