IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7693/2018 BETWEEN:
SMT. PYARIJAN W/O MARISWAMY M.K AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.3, BETHEL TOWERS, 5TH C CROSS SHARADHAMBA NAGAR JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560015.
(BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE YESALUR POLICE STATION SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. SMT. THIRTHA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HULAGATHUR YESALUR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE/1ST RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.656/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 323, 324, 504, 506 AND 494 R/W 34 OF IPC AT ANNEXURE-C IN SOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. H.P.Leeladhar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Chandrashekaraiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State. Second respondent is served but unrepresented. Perused case papers.
2. Complainant-second respondent lodged a complaint against Petitioner on 19.03.2017 which came to be registered as Crime No.38/2017 by Yesalur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. Complainant has alleged two (2) incidents namely;
(i) It is alleged that on 05.03.2017, when she was staying at Yesalur quarters along with her husband at about 4.00 p.m. petitioner as well as one Smt. Seema and their son had trespassed into their house and demanded that complainant should vacate the house and in the process also assaulted her and had thrown out of the house.
(ii) On 07.03.2017 when she went to her husband’s house he had assaulted her 2-3 times by using foul language and had abused her and threatened her if she were to return, he would kill her and throw her dead body in the nearby forest.
4. It is noticed that very same complainant had lodged a complaint on 06.03.2017- Annexure-C alleging about the incident that occurred on 05.03.2017 on the basis of same, police is said to have investigated and which registered it as an NCR No.26/2017 and statement of alleged persons, who alleged to have assaulted the complainant, was also recorded, but, nothing is on record there to establish that subsequently FIR came to be registered on the basis of said complaint. On the other hand, Sri. H.P.Leeladhar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that after having recorded the statement of petitioner, complaint came to be closed.
5. Sri. S. Chandrashekaraiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State is not able to state as to whether any further proceedings had been taken pursuant to complaint lodged on 06.03.2017.
6. Be that as it may. In respect of same incident, which occurred on 05.03.2017, a complaint had already lodged on 06.03.2017 which was followed up by filing second complaint on 19.03.2017, which culminated in FIR being registered in Crime No.38/2017 and subsequently, after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.656/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and two others namely, Sri. Mariswamy (accused No.1) and Smt. Seema (accused No.2).
7. Sri. H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for petitioner has also made available copy of the order dated 13.11.2018 passed in Crl.P.No.8012/2018, which was filed by said Mariswamy for quashing of FIR in question i.e., in Crime No.38/2017. On the strength of compromise petition filed, Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the Criminal petition No.8012/2018 and has quashed FIR insofar as Mariswamy (A-1) is concerned. When complainant has alleged about the incident that occurred on 05.03.2017 by lodging a complaint on 06.03.2017- Annexure-C, which has stood closed, question of initiating proceedings in respect of same incident against petitioner would not arise. That apart, there is no allegation against petitioner even in the second complaint, which came to be lodged on 19.03.2017. In that view of the matter, continuation of proceedings against petitioner would definitely be an abuse of process of law and would not serve any purpose but on the other hand it would only be waste of precious judicial time.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(2) Proceeding pending in C.C.No.656/2017 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura, Hassan, registered against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.
(3) Petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
SD/-
JUDGE RU