IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.152/2019 BETWEEN:
RAMESH BALAPPA MAMADAPUR S/O BALAPPA I. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.211, GLADIOLA GARDENIA, 2ND CROSS BDS LAYOUT, NEAR BHARATH PETROL BUNK, DR. SHIVARAMA KARANTHA NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 077.
(BY SRI. S.S. KOTI ON BEHALF OF SRI. GANGADHAR G.D., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE BENGALURU CITY REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. SHILPA MAMADAPUR W/O RAMESH MAMADAPUR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.211, GLADIOLA GARDENIA, 2ND CROSS BDS LAYOUT, NEAR BHARATH ... PETITIONER PETROL BUNK, DR. SHIVARAMA KARANTHA NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 077.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.112/2018 AND C.C.NO.24077/2018 PENDING IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALORE, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. S.S.Koti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Gangadhar G.D. for petitioner and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Marriage between petitioner and second respondent came to be solemnised on 08.02.2003 and they were said to be living at United States of America. Three (3) years prior to filing of the complaint, they have returned back to India and were said to be residing at Bangalore. A complaint came to be lodged on 17.04.2018 by second respondent herein alleging that she had been harassed physically and mentally by petitioner and other members of his family and she was brutally assaulted on 22.06.2017 resulting in her ear getting damaged, due to which she had to undergo surgery. She has also alleged that even on the day previous to lodging the complaint petitioner had abused her, manhandled and attempted to choke her by throttling her and he had pulled her hair and had also abused her with foul language. Said complaint came to be registered by Sampigehalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC against petitioner and other family members. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner alone for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC in C.C.No.24077/2018 and charges against other accused came to be dropped. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
3. It is the contention of Sri.S.S.Koti, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence alleged and the learned Magistrate without application of judicious mind has blindly framed charged against petitioner and entire charge sheet material when perused do not disclose any offence having been committed by the petitioner. Though alleged incident itself would speak about the conduct of complainant and as such in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner complaint in question has been filed by second respondent. He would also contend that on account of petitioner having filed civil suit against the family members of complainant, present complaint has been lodged. Hence, he prays for quashing of said proceedings.
4. Per contra, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State would support the case of prosecution by contending that when charge sheet material is read in its entirety, it would clearly indicate offence alleged having been committed by petitioner and as such he submits that petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it requires to be noticed at the outset, that it is a well settled that Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. Learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence relied upon by prosecution in support of allegations made in the complaint, inasmuch as Magistrate would not undertake to exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or would ultimately lead to acquittal of the accused.
6. Quashing of criminal proceedings would call for only in a case where allegations made in the complaint not disclosing any offence or compliant being frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done by the trial Judge to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. In the event of statement made by the complainant on oath disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged are made, quashing of proceedings would not arise.
7. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, may lead to acquittal, are also not ground for quashing of the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, only question relevant would be whether averments made in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not? Perusal of complaint in question would prima facie disclose that allegations are there against petitioner and even independent witness, who has been examined by the investigating officer and who is none other than the security guard of the apartment where petitioner and second respondent lived together, has unequivocally spoken about the alleged harassment meted out by petitioner to second respondent including physical assault. As such this Court is of the considered view that when complaint itself disclosing the offence alleged against petitioner, it would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to stifle the proceedings before trial Court at the threshold and any opinion expressed by this Court on the merits of the case would definitely prejudice rights of either of the parties. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petition deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it stands rejected. It is made clear that any opinion expressed by this Court during the course of order is for the limited purpose of consideration of prayer for quashing of the proceedings pending before trial Court and as such trial Court shall not be influenced by any such observations made in this order above referred to above.
In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR