IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1174/2013 BETWEEN 1. SMT. KRISHNAVENI W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. P RAGHU S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.48, 4TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE, SOMASANDRAPALYA, BANGALORE 560034.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI : SHIVAYOGI B HALLUR, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H S R LAYOUT POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. SMT P ROOPA DEVI W/O PENTAKOT PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.202, SEETHA MANSION, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 500 016 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI : I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED ) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED:26.6.12 REGISTERED AT H.S.R. LAYOUT POLICE STATION BANGALORE, IN CRIME NO.212/12 REGISTERED U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC: QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.2405/13 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ACMM, BANGALORE AND SET ASIE THE ORDER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR and charge sheet in C.C.No.2405/2013. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and accused No.1 based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. After investigation, charge sheet is laid against three accused persons. The petitioners herein are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2.
3. According to the complainant, she married accused No.1 on 18.5.2005 and thereafter, she was subjected to repeated ill treatment and harassment in the matrimonial house. With regard to the incident that had taken place in the matrimonial home on 24.6.12, the complainant has alleged that between 10.30 and 11.00 a.m, accused No.1 assaulted the complainant on her chest and head, accused No.2 caught hold of her hand and accused No.3 also assaulted her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners did not reside with the complainant at any point of time; they were residing in Bangalore all throughout and in support thereof, petitioners have produced the certificate issued by the employer of petitioner No.2, which indicate that petitioner No.2 was employed in Bangalore.
4. The contentions urged by the petitioners are in the nature of defence, which could be considered only at the stage of trial. Pursuant to the allegations made by the complainant, the Investigating Agency has collected prima facie material by way of statement of the complainant, as well as the statements of eye witnesses, coupled with the wound certificate, which prima facie make out the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge sheet laid against the petitioners is false and baseless and that the 2nd respondent has abused the process of Court out of spite or malice as contended in the petition.
For the above reasons, I do not find any good ground to quash the FIR and charge sheet in C.C. No. 2405/2013.
As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.