IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6558/2014 BETWEEN:
Smt. Shamala Madhusudhan, W/o. Sri. K.N. Madhusudhan, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.19/4, 1st Main, Jayamahal, Bengaluru – 560 046. …Petitioner (By Sri. G.R. Mohan, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, High Ground Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented by its S.P.P., Advocate General Office, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Erica, D/o. E. Leonard, Aged about 44 years, R/at No.28, Gowri Kunj, Palace Cross Road, Bengaluru – 560 020. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP II for R1; Sri. B.M. Halaswamy, Adv. for R2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10658/2014 pending on the file of the I Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings pending against her in C.C.No.10658/2014 on the file of the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. The accusations against the petitioner are that the petitioner herein sent threatening messages to the mobile of respondent No.2 and issued threat to her life.
2. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The provisions of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, have been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence the charge under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, does not survive. However, in so far as offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, there are clear allegations attracting the said offences and the Investigating Agency has collected supporting material to justify the said charges. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the accusations leveled against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are groundless or an abuse of the process of Court as contended.
3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part.
Prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is quashed. The prayer made in the petition to quash the proceedings under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SV/-