IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI Crl.P. No.5809/2019 BETWEEN:
Smt.Rathi, d/o Shivananjappa Aged about 40 years Occ:Private Business r/a No.69/A 37 Cross Jayanagara 9th Block Bengaluru – 560 011. … Petitioner (By Sri Mahendra G & Sri Sharath J M, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bangalore Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Sowmya N J c/o Mr.N V Jagannatha w/o Mr.Mahesh S Occ: Private Business Aged about 36 years Working at BEML Bangalore Diary City Bangalore, now temporarily working as 1st Grade Chemist Chilling Centre Solur, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District.
Now r/a C/o M V Jaganath Retired Senior Health Inspector No.3107, Bazar Street Opp: BATA Showroom Nelamangala – 562 101 Bangalore Rural District. ... Respondents (By Sri R D Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, Sri N Jagadish Baliga, Advocate for R2) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.16825/2017 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 498-A, 506 R/W Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act against the petitioner/accused No.2.
This petition is coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief:
a) Call for relevant records.
b) Quash the entire proceeding in CC 16825/2017 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act against the petitioner/accused No.2 c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. Complainant – 2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging against her in-laws and petitioner. Petitioner is undisputedly stranger to the complainant’s family. Allegation on the petitioner is that she is a mistress of her husband-Mahesha. Further, allegation leveled against the petitioner is that she had threatened the complainant due to illicit relationship between her husband and petitioner, which has resulted in dispute between the family members, whereas perusal of complaint that there is no specific incident by which petitioner is stated to have threatened the complainant. In the absence of specific averment with reference to dates and events, such allegations are very vague and bald, which cannot be appreciated. That apart, such complaint is with reference to dowry harassment case. Thus, petitioner has been implicated unnecessarily.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently contended that threatening the 2nd respondent by the petitioner is suffice and attracts Section 506 of IPC. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the complaint/FIR and consequential proceedings.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific dates and events relating to allegations leveled against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent and that petitioner was threatening the 2nd respondent – complainant. In the absence of specific incident, making such vague allegation and that too there is no prima facie relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant, the offences alleged under Section 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act do not attract. Petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the proceedings initiated against her. Therefore, the entire proceedings in CC No.16825/2017 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act are quashed so far as petitioner is concerned.
Accordingly, petition stands allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm