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.2911 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. MRS. ASHA W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 2. C PRAKASH S/O LATE CHIKKAGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O AT NO.5 MUNEGOWDA GARDEN NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE-560040 3. MUNIYAPPA @ MUTTHAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 4. M RAJA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. RAMU S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. PULLAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/O.NO.18, 7TH CROSS CHIKKA ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560029 (BY SRI: B C RAI, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. SMT H P UMA W/O N MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O 71-J, 3RD CROSS BORAMMA STREET, HULIMAVU BANGALORE-560076 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: BASAVARAJ H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2013 IN C.C.NO.33257/2010 (CR. NO.227/2009) PASSED BY THE II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AND ORDER DATED 25.03.2013 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.48/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE F.T.C.-II, BANGALORE CITY.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.4 to 9 in the charge sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract the above offences insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Petitioners are not the members of the family of respondent No.2. There are no allegations that these petitioners subjected respondent No.2 to any cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. There are also no allegations constituting the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act against the petitioners. Under the said circumstance, prosecution of the petitioners is bad in law and is an abuse of the process of Court.
4. Learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 however argued in support of the impugned action contending that the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of the offences.
5. Considered the contentions on both sides.
6. On going through the allegations made in the charge sheet and the averments made in the complaint, it is noticed that the only allegation made against the petitioners herein is that after delivery of the child, when the complainant had been to the house of her husband and when she was waiting outside the house, at about 4.00 p.m. her husband came there and took her to the house of his uncle Muthappa. The said Muthappa tried to snatch the child. At that time, sons of the said Muthappa viz. Raja, Ramu and Pillappa assaulted her with hands and clubs. Complaint is silent as to the date of the alleged incident. Though the petitioners i.e. A4, A5 , A6, A7, A8 and A9 are named in the FIR, there are no specific allegations against A4, A5 and A6 are concerned. It is not clear from the material produced along with the charge sheet as to the date when the alleged incident had taken place and no supporting material is produced to show that respondent No.2 had sustained any injuries during the occurrence. Complaint was filed on 9.11.2009. Delivery had taken place on 11.4.2008. Though the said incident is stated to have been taken place 8 weeks after the delivery but the said allegations in my view, are not sufficient to constitute the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A of IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The above evidence might at the most attract the offence under Section 506 of IPC but not Section 498 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. But even in this regard, there is no specific material to show that the threats were issued by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, prosecution of the petitioners being an abuse of process of Court, it would be a futile exercise to continue the prosecution against the petitioners.
For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. Prosecution initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.33257/2010 pending on the file of the II ACMM Court at Bengaluru are quashed only insofar as the petitioners namely accused Nos. 4 to 9 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE rs