IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5115 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri B.D. Chandraiah S/o Sri Durgaiah Aged about 52 years Residing at Bannikuppe Village Kylancha Hobli Ramangara Taluk Ramangara District – 526159. ... Petitioner (By Sri Mohan .S - Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By Channapatna Rural Police Station Channapatna - 562108.
2. Smt. Shakunthala W/o Sri B. D. Chandraiah Aged about 39 years Residing at Vandaraguppe Kasaba Hobli Channapatna Taluk Ramangara District 562108.
... Respondents (By Sri S. Rachaiah – HCGP for Respondent) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 14.05.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26/2017 on the file of the First Additional District and Session Judge Ramanagara and etc.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Mohan .S, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State. No notice is issued to second respondent since petition is dismissed at threshold for the reasons stated herein below:
2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by second respondent on 29.06.2011, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.202/2011 against petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.281/2012 for said offences. For quashing of said proceedings, petitioner is before this court.
3. It is the contention of Sri. S. Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner that complaint which has been lodged by second respondent against the petitioner is the second complaint and on same set of facts a complaint had been filed and as such, petitioner had approached this court for quashing of proceedings by filing Crl.P No.2700/2015 and this court by order dated 29.07.2015 had granted liberty to petitioner to file an appropriate application to seek for discharge and as such, an application came to be filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and learned trial judge by order dated 03.07.2017 has erroneously dismissed the same without considering earlier judgment and this order has been affirmed by the Revisional Court on 14.05.2018 in Crl.R.P.No.26/2017 and as such, he seeks for quashing of said orders by allowing this petition.
4. Per contra, Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, it would disclose that there is no dispute to the fact that petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife and their marriage came to be solemnized on 12.06.1998 and out of the wedlock a daughter was born. Second respondent lodged a complaint against petitioner on 31.12.2004, which resulted in filing of charge-sheet against petitioner in C.C.No.404/2005 and said proceedings came to an end by way of judgment of acquittal in favour of the petitioner. The copy of said judgment which is on record would also disclose that order of acquittal was on two grounds:- (a) prosecution witnesses did not support the case of prosecution; (b) learned trial judge took note of the fact that there was settlement/compromise between the accused therein and the complainant (Smt. Shakunthala), who is the second respondent herein. That apart, said judgment would also disclose that complainant-Shakunthala had not entered the witness box. Be that as it may.
Fact remains that by virtue of settlement arrived at, petitioner and second respondent, according to the allegations made in the complaint dated 29.06.2011, were living together and it was assured by the accused that he would take care of respondent as well as their daughter. With this assurance, she continued to live with the petitioner. It is further alleged that again petitioner started harassing her and abusing her and also physically assaulting her. In the light of said development, she lodged a second complaint on 29.06.2011, which is now pending in C.C.No.281/2012. Taking note of all these facts, the learned trial judge has observed to the following effect:
“Further, on perusal of the charge- sheet materials there are complaint along with statements of witnesses and hence there is a triable case made out by the prosecution and hence this court properly took cognizance of the alleged offences against the accused. The allegations made in the previous case and the present case are totally different and stands on different footing and hence this court is of the view that this court did not err in taking cognizance of the offences against the accused. As there is a prima-facie case against the accused, hence there are no grounds to discharge the accused and hence accordingly, I answer this point in the negative.”
With these observations, learned trial judge has rightly refused to discharge the accused. I do not find any error committed by the learned trial judge or by the revisional court affirming said order.
There are no good ground to quash the proceedings. Criminal Petition is rejected. In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same is also rejected.
Np/-
SD/- JUDGE