IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8904/2019 Between:
Pinky Chedilal Mallah @ Arya, D/o Chedilal Mallah, Aged about 22 years, R/at No.301, III Floor, E-Wing, Minal Park, Dahisar East, Mumbai – 401 303.
(By Sri.Kamaluddin, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Byadarahalli Police Station, By its Inspector of Police, Pin: 560 091.
Represented by S.P.P., 2. Venugoapl K.V., S/o K.Venkatesha, #15, Dodda Mazeedi Road, Chikkaballapura – 562 101, Karnataka.
(By Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1; R2 served but unrepresented) …Petitioner ..Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the first information report in Crime No.0146/2016 filed by the respondent police viz., Byadarahalli Police Station, Ramanagaram District against the petitioner for the offence P/U/S 306 read with Section 34 of IPC 1860 on the file of Hon’ble VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“A. To quash the First Information Report in Crime No.0146/2016 filed by the Respondent Police, viz., Byadarahalli Police Station, Ramanagaram District against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 on the file of Hon’ble VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and;
B. To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case by allowing the above petition in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The deceased Vijayashanti committed suicide while pouring acid related material and she has given the statement before the police and doctor that the petitioner is stated to be in illicit relationship with her husband Sri.Hemanth Kumar. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to be responsible for taking drastic steps by the deceased in committing suicide.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is only a statement made by the deceased Vijayashanti. However, there is no reference except stating that petitioner is one who is responsible for deceased to take drastic steps in committing suicide. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.Mohan V/s State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 at para 41 that instigation is required to be examined .
4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submitted that charge sheet is yet to be filed and still under investigation stage. Therefore, the question is to what extent the petitioner has instigated so as to deceased to take drastic steps in committing suicide. If there is no material during the course of investigation ‘B’ report would have been filed in so far as petitioner is concerned.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner is in prima facie serious in nature and it is required to be examined during the course of the investigation. The decision cited above do not assist at this stage, since investigation yet to be completed . The Supreme Court time and again has held that if there are allegations that too in the nature of heinous offences, Court shall not interfere before completion of investigation. Thus, the above cited decision has no assistance to the petitioner at this stage. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is arising out of the incident relating to April 2016. Respondent police have not completed the process of investigation and not filed final report / charge sheet. Therefore, respondent police are hereby directed to complete the process of investigation within a period of one month from today. Further, the Court below is hereby directed to expedite the matter and necessary endeavour be made to decide the case within period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE UN