IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8492/2015 BETWEEN:
1. A. R. SHASHI KIRAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O A. RAJANNA, R/AT 16425 APARTMENT 106, S.W. ESTUARY DR. BEAAVERTION, OREGON-97006 (USA), AND ALSO AT:
NO.16, "G", 8TH STREET, JOGUPALYA, HALASURU, BANGALORE-560 008.
2. SMT. MOHAN KUMARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O. A. RAJANNA, R/AT NO.16, "G" 8TH STREET, JOGUPALYA, HALASURU, BANGALORE-560 008.
... PETITIONERS AND:
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI BASAVARAJU BELAVANGALA, ADVOCATE) SMT. P.R. SOWMYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, W/O A.R. SHASHI KIRAN, D/O MR. P. RAMESH, R/AT NO.1, NINGAPPA LAYOUT, URAGALURU POST, SHIMOGA CITY – 577201.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE HON'BLE JMFC II COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.935/2014 ON THE FILE OF JMFC II, COURT, SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Respondent herein filed a private complaint against petitioners seeking action under Section 498A and 504 of IPC. The learned Magistrate on recording the sworn statement of respondent issued summons to petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings on the file of the JMFC II Court, Shivamogga in C.C.No.935/2014.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted as true, do not make out the ingredients of the above offences. The acts alleged in the complaint are stated to have taken place in USA, where respondent and petitioner No.1 were staying together. There is no material to show that any of the acts of alleged cruelty or abuse has taken place within the jurisdiction of the JMFC Court, Shivamogga. Under the said circumstances, in view of the bar contained under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences. Further, the allegations made in the complaint do not make out any of the ingredients of the offences and under the said circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of the process of Court.
4. Learned counsel for respondent however would submit that the allegations made in the complaint clearly reveal that part of the cause of action has taken place within the limits of Shivamogga Court. There are allegations that during her stay in the matrimonial home, soon after the marriage, as well as after her return from the USA, the alleged incidents have taken place. These allegations prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against petitioners and therefore there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
5. Meeting this argument, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the matrimonial house of the complainant was in Bangalore and not in Shivamogga and therefore the courts in Shivamogga had no jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint and to take cognizance of the alleged offence.
6. On going through the averments made in the complaint, it is not clear as to where the matrimonial house of the complainant was located. It is stated that the marriage had taken place in Shivamogga and after marriage, she came to Bengaluru and it is alleged that when she was in Shivamogga, some of the unpleasant incidents had taken place. It is further stated that on 5.10.2012, mediation had taken place in Shivamogga. These circumstances therefore suggest that part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Shivamogga Court and therefore at this juncture, I am unable to accept the contentions urged by the petitioners that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the criminal Court at Shivamogga.
7. Insofar as the other allegations made in the complaint are concerned, I find that the above allegations, if proved, would make out a case against petitioners for the offences alleged in the complaint. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the matter at this stage. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE MD