IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 4233/2013 C/w.
Crl.P. No. 4234/2013 Crl.P. No. 4233/2013 BETWEEN :
Sri. A. Joseph Victor S/o. late A. Appaji Rao Aged about 62 years R/a. No. 14, Fair Heaven First Floor, 5th Main, 1st Cross Off 80 Feet Nehru Road Giddappa Layout St. Thomas Post Kammanahalli Bangalore – 560 084. … PETITIONER (By Sri. Janardhana G., Adv.) AND :
1. Smt. Mary Shamala W/o. A. Joseph Victor Aged about 53 years R/a. No. 14, Fair Heaven First Floor, 5th Main, 1st Cross Off 80 Feet Nehru Road Giddappa Layout St. Thomas Post Kammanahalli Bangalore – 560 084.
2. State by Sub-Inspector Of Police Banaswadi Police Station Bangalore – 560 043. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha, Adv., for R-1 ABSENT Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-2) This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.04.2011 filed by 2nd respondent in C.C. No. 24800/2011 and etc.
Crl.P. No. 4234/2013 BETWEEN :
Sri. T.A. Jayaraj S/o. late S.T. Anthony Aged about 56 years R/a. No. 14, Fair Heaven First Floor, 5th Main, 1st Cross Off 80 Feet Nehru Road Giddappa Layout St. Thomas Post Kammanahalli Bangalore – 560 084. … PETITIONER (By Sri. Janardhana G, Adv.) AND :
1. Smt. Mary Shamala W/o. A. Joseph Victor Aged about 53 years R/a. No. 14, Fair Heaven First Floor, 5th Main, 1st Cross Off 80 Feet Nehru Road Giddappa Layout St. Thomas Post Kammanahalli Bangalore – 560 084.
2. State by Sub-Inspector Of Police Banaswadi Police Station Bangalore – 560 043. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha, Adv., for R-1 ABSENT Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-2) This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.04.2011 filed by 2nd respondent in C.C. No. 24800/2011 and etc.
These Crl.Ps coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 24800/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Accused No. 1/petitioner in Crl.P. No. 4233/2013 is the husband of complainant/respondent No. 1. Accused No. 2 is the tenant residing in the ground floor of the building wherein accused No. 1 and the complainant are residing together. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against accused Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that on 16.04.2011 at about 05.00 pm accused Nos. 1 and 2 abused her and also issued threat to her life.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No. 1 and respondent No. 1 are married for more than 30 years and they are residing together. No incident has taken place as alleged in the complaint except that on account of cheque bounce matter when the payees of the said cheques came to the house, there were altercation between the parties and the same does not amount to an intentional act constituting offence either under Section 498A or 504 or 506 of I.P.C. and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence is wholly baseless and abuse of process of the Court.
4. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No. 2 - State would argue in support of the impugned charge contending that specific allegations are made against the petitioners and the said allegations are sought to be substantiated with cogent evidence and hence there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.
1/complainant has remained absent and has not addressed any arguments.
6. A reading of the charge sheet would indicate that the incident in question had taken place in the context when the various cheques issued by the complainant got dishonoured and the payees of the said cheques came to the house of the complainant to question her about the dishonour of cheques issued by her. The facts narrated in the charge sheet disclose that the complainant is a teacher by profession and petitioner No. 1 - her husband is a retired ITI employee. There is specific reference in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet that the persons to whom she had issued cheques had come to her house to question her about the dishonour of the cheques, which indicates that when strangers came to the house, petitioner No. 1 being the husband of complainant appears to have entered into verbal altercation with the complainant and payees of the said cheques. There is nothing in the entire charge sheet to indicate that during the occurrence, the petitioner herein intentionally abused the complainant with intention to commit breach of peace. To attract the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC the offence should be committed with an intention either to insult or give provocation to any person knowing that it is likely that such provocation will cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Such allegations are lacking in the present case. As such the prosecution has failed to make out prima facie case for prosecution of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.
7. Insofar as petitioner No. 2/accused No. 2 is concerned, undisputedly he was a tenant residing in the same house. Apparently on account of nuisance caused by the outsiders quarreling with the complainant and accused No. 1 over bounced cheques, he appears to have been involved in the alleged incident. In the said circumstances no criminal intention could be imputed to accused No. 2.
8. Having regard to the above facts, in my view, prosecution of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the alleged offences under Section 504 and 506 IPC is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
9. Insofar as Section 498A I.P.C is concerned, the same could be sustained only against accused No. 1 provided necessary ingredients of the said offence are made out by the prosecution. In the instant case, except alleging that on the date of the incident accused Nos. 1 and 2 picked up quarrel with complainant and abused her, there are no other allegations to the effect that accused No. 1 subjected the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The explanation to Section 498A IPC defines cruelty as, any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman and such material is totally lacking in the instant case. As a result the prosecution of accused No.1 for the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC also is baseless, frivolous and illegal amounting to abuse of process of Court. As a result both petitions deserve to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C. No. 24800/2011 on the file of XI ACMM, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.