IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5447 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. Irish Ashalatha Palanna, W/o. Robinson Palanna, Aged about 60 years, 2. Robinson Palanna, S/o. D.D. Palanna, Aged about 64 years, Both are residents of Flat No.11, Sai Paradise, Urva Store, Mangaluru- 04. … Petitioners (By Sri. Brijesh Patil, Advocate for Sri. P.N. Hegde, Advocate) AND:
1. The State by Mangalore City PS, Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-56001.
2. Smt. Dina Susan Palanna, W/o. Wilson Raj Palanna, Aged about 32 years, No.836, 6th Cross, 2nd Stage, 10th Main, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560 038. . . Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl., SPP., for Respondent No.1, Sri. Hemanth Kumar.D, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition filed under Section-482 of Cr.P.C., by the Advocate for the petitioner praying to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.42/2015, pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent, Urva Police Station, Mangaluru, pending on the file of the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mangaluru City.
This Criminal Petition Coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in crime No.42/2015 of Urva Police Station Mangaluru city, for the offences punishable under Section 506, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent-complainant. She lodged a complaint against her husband and the petitioners herein on 15.06.2015, wherein she narrated all the instances of cruelty and violence meted to her by her husband and the petitioners herein, when they were residing together at Abu-Dhabi. The complaint is replete with instances of violence committed by her husband. But, there is no whisper in the entire complaint, insofar as the acts of commission or omission by the petitioners herein, when they were staying in Abu-Dhabi. The only allegation made in the complaint, referring the petitioners herein, is in the last paragraph of her complaint, which reads as under:
“My husband, his mother and father never bothered to call me or enquire about the baby. Even though my family tried to mediate and solve the issues, Wilson and his family showed no interest in accepting me and her baby back. My father-in-law was never bothered to take care of the situation or even tried to control the violence against me. He was all along a mute spectator and a henpecked husband witnessing the violence and allowed me to undergo all the hardships, cruelty, mental and physical harassment. My father-in-law did not even console me and never bothered to attend my phone calls and every time I called he used to avoid and handed over the phone to my mother- in-law and the cruel lady every time used to abuse me and suddenly she used to cut the phone call. My father-in-law being a head of the Family would have stopped all this harassment but unwillingness on his part shows his clear intention of being part of the crime. Thus, he has also committed the crime on par with my husband and mother-in-law. Even my husband many a times has threatened to kill me, if I lodge a complaint.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above allegations, even if accepted, as a whole, do not make out the offences alleged against the petitioners, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners for the said offences is illegal and liable to be quashed.
4. The learned additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant have argued in support of the impugned action.
5. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under this provision should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. It is a settled proposition that the wholesome power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding only when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
6. In the present case, a bare reading of the averments made in the complaint would indicate that the petitioners herein being the in-laws of the complainant did not intervene in the matrimonial dispute between the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband. There is no allegation of any direct acts of commission by the petitioners. On the other hand, the averments extracted above would go to show that the petitioners did not take the side of their daughter-in-law and they did not try to intervene in the affairs of the complainant and her husband. There are no allegations whatsoever that these petitioners have committed any acts of physical or mental cruelty or harassment to the 2nd respondent. The complaint, if read in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of the offences within the meaning of Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code. In the said circumstances, registration of the case against the petitioners is wholly illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The allegations made against the petitioners, prima facie, do not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against them.
As a result, the petition is allowed. The First Information Report registered against the petitioners, in Crime No.42/2015 of the 1st respondent-Urva Police Station, Mangaluru city, for the offence punishable under Section 506, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, only insofar as the petitioners are concerned, namely, accused Nos.2 & 3. The investigation shall be proceeded with only, against the accused No.1, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE VR