IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3593/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. A. Lakshmipathy, S/o. H.A. Veerabasappachar, Aged 80 years, # 2713/1, 2nd Cross, MCC B Block, Davangere – 577 004.
2. Smt. Shamala, W/o. A. Lakshmipathy, Aged 72 years, # 2713/1 2nd Cross, MCC B Block, Davangere – 577 004.
3. Smt. Pushpa Rudrachar, W/o. H.V. Rudrachar, Aged about 60 years, # 3758/31p 2nd Main 2nd Cross, Swamy Vivekananda Badavane, Davangere – 577 004.
4. Sri. G. Prakesh, S/o. C. Gangadhrachar, Aged about 53 years, # 550/1 Saraswathi Nagar, Davangare – 577 004.
5. Smt. K. Dakshayamma, W/o. Sri. G. Prakesh, Aged about 52 years, # 550/1 Saraswathi Nagar, Davangare – 577 004.
6. Sri. K. Lakshmipathy, S/o. Kenchappa, Aged about 61 years, Vishwakarma Shree, B.B.Street, Near K.R. Pet Post Office, Shimoga – 577 201.
7. Smt. K. Bhagyalakshmi, W/o. Siddalingchar, Aged about 54 years, # Chandrappa Layout, M.S. Palya, Bengaluru.
8. Smt. K. Savitramma, W/o. K.M. Poorvachar, Aged about 48 years, C/o. Kalvathi, Buddha Nagar, Milagatta 1st Cross, Shimoga – 577 201. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G, Advocate for P3 to P8) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By it’s Mahila Police, Shimoga – 577 202.
2. Smt. Sharadamma, W/o. K. Shivakumarachari, R/at No.13, DRA Police Quarters, Shimoga – 577 201. ... Respondents (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1, R2 served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR dated 10.05.2013 in Cr.No.54/2013 registered by respondent No.1 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C. (II Court), Shimoga vide Annexure-A.
This Criminal petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.54/2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 355, 506, 114 R/w 34 of IPC. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are reported to have died.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.3 to 8 (accused Nos.5, 7, 6, 2, 9 and 8, respectively) would submit that the averments made in the complaint do not disclose commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners. All the allegations are directed only against accused No.1 and therefore, prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is a clear case of abuse of process of Court.
3. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose commission of criminal offences and the matter is under investigation and hence, there is no case for quashment of the proceedings.
4. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
5. Considered the submission and perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the marriage of respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was performed in the year 1989. In the wedlock they have two children. The complaint came to be lodged on 10.05.2013. In the complaint it is specifically stated that since about seven months earlier to the date of lodging the complaint, her husband was residing in the house of his sister-Savithri (accused No.8). Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the only allegation made in the complaint is that about six months back all the petitioners herein came to her house and without any reason assaulted her with hands and abused her. The complaint is silent with regard to the specific date and time when the alleged incident took place. The allegations are bald and the complainant has not disclosed any specific overt acts against anyone of the petitioners. It is also not the case of the respondent No.2 that on account of the alleged assault she has sustained any injury necessitating treatment in the hospital. The manner in which these allegations are made against the petitioners gives an indication that the petitioners have been implicated in the alleged offences solely out of spite and malice apparently to settle score with her husband against whom she has serious matrimonial differences. The allegations made in the complaint even if accepted on their face value do not make out any semblance of offence by the petitioners herein. Under the said circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court.
For the above reasons, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.54/2013 are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV/ssb