IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6509/2015 BETWEEN:
Smt.Shanthamma, W/o late Rangaswamy, Aged about 70 years, R/at No.8, 4th Cross, 6th Block, Rajajinagara, Bangalore -560 010. ….Petitioner (By Sri.B.Keshava Murthy, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, SHO, Subramanyanagara Police Station, Bangalore-560 001.
2. Smt. Radhamma, W/o Mr. G.R.Srinivas, R/at 83’/3, I N Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010. …..Respondents.
(By Sri. I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP II for R1, Sri. Manjunath G.Kandekar, Adv. for R2) This criminal petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections.323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of VII A.C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C.No.40664/2010 etc.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following;
ORDER Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No. 87/2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections. 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet is laid against the petitioner and two other accused persons for the above offences. Petitioner is mother–in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2.
2. The allegations made against the petitioner are that on 20/03/2010 at about 10.55 a.m. when the complainant was in the shop, accused Nos. 1 to 4 with the common intention assaulted the complainant on her face and back and kicked and abused her in filthy language issuing threats.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the complaint has been filed on coming to know of the injunction suit filed against the complainant in respect of the very same business premises. Therefore, there is no propriety in taking recourse to criminal acts.
4. There is nothing on record to show that the injunction order was communicated to the complainant prior to the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, the contention urged by the petitioner that the impugned complaint is fall out of the injunction suit filed by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
5. As there are prima facie allegations attracting the offences charged against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
6. However, having regard to the contentions urged in the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before trial court, the petition is dismissed.
Msu Sd/- JUDGE