IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9911/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT #65, 4TH CROSS GOWTHAM NAGAR YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU – 560 064.
(BY SRI. K. ABHINAV ANAND., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY S.H.O OF YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, POLICE STATION YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560 064.
2. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O M.R. RAMAKRISHNAPPA R/AT #65, 4TH CROSS GAUTHAMNAGAR YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU – 560 064.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.14135/2015 AGAINST HIM ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.147/2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. K. Abhinav Anand, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Chandrashekaraiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C.No.14135/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
3. It is urged in the petition that alleged incident had occurred during January, 2014 and complainant being well aware of the third marriage of the petitioner with one Smt. Manjula, yet, she had kept quite and complaint in question is a counter blast to the petition filed by the petitioner against her for dissolution of the marriage. Hence, petitioner is seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
4. At the time of considering the prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, this Court would not embark upon conducting a roving enquiry with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the compliant. This Court would not hold mini trial as to whether charge sheet material is to be accepted or not, since it may prejudice the rights of either of the parties. Prima facie if charge sheet material or allegation made in the complaint would disclose the offence alleged, it would suffice to allow the proceedings being continued and this Court would not interfere with the investigation or stall the proceedings. On the other hand, if averments made in the complaint itself do not constitute any offence then continuation of proceedings against accused would result in abuse of process of law or continuation of proceedings would not serve any purpose and in such circumstances, this Court would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of law.
5. Keeping above principles in mind, when case papers on hand are perused, it would disclose that complainant is none other than wife of the petitioner. She has alleged that on the death of first wife, petitioner had married her and out of said wedlock, two children were born and she has further stated that he has harassed her both physically and mentally. She has further alleged that petitioner has married Smt. Manjula which is third marriage and he has been insisting the complainant to give consent for divorce of his marriage with complainant. On account of her refusal to heed to his requests, she has been physically assaulted and he has also threatened the complainant that if she refuses to give her consent for divorce, he would take away her life. On the basis of said allegation made in the complaint, jurisdictional police have registered the FIR in Crime No.147/2014 against petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 IPC and said allegations cannot be disbelieved. It is a matter which will have to examined after trial. Thus, it would be open for the accused to put up his defence if he chose to do so during trial.
For the aforestated reasons, this Court finds that it is not a fit case where proceedings pending before trial Court requires to be interjected by this Court. No good grounds are made out to entertain this petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE RU