IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2529 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. Puttaraju, S/o late Channashetty, Aged about 48 years, Working as Revenue Inspector, Dr. Lohia Road, Vidyanagar, Hassan.
2. Smt. Sumithra @ Bhagyalakshmi, W/o Puttaraju, Aged about 42 years, Residing at Dr. Lohia Road, Vidyanagar, Hassan.
3. Sri. Somashekar, S/o late Ramakrishna Shetty, Aged about 38 years, Residing at Dr. Lohia Road, Vidyanagar, Hassan.
4. Smt. Jayalakshmamma, W/o late Ramakrishna Shetty, Aged about 70 years, Residing at Dr. Lohia Road, Vidyanagar, Hassan.
(By Sri. Madhav Kashyap, Advocate for Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, by Extension Police Station, Hassan City Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Smt. Veena @ Lakshmi Devi, W/o Palaksha, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Gowrikoppalu, Behind School for Hearing Impaired, Vidyanagar, Hassan Taluk & District.
…Petitioners ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1 Sri. Kiran J., Advocate for M/s. Shetty and Hegde Associates for R2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Hassan in C.C.No.50/2012 thereby taking cognizance against the petitioners and issuing summons against the petitioners in the above case.
This Criminal petition coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioners are the relatives of the complainant, namely, respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Hassan Extension Police on 18.07.2011, alleging that her marriage was performed on 18.06.1997 and she has a son aged about 13 years. Since 2 years, she has been residing at Gowrikoppalu, Vidyanagar, Hassan. According to her, since about 7 years, her husband had developed illicit relationship with one C.R. Vishala and in this backdrop, he was ill-treating and harassing the complainant and he was not paying any maintenance either to her or to her son. Hence, she was constrained to approach the Karnataka Lokayuktha seeking redressal of her grievance. Having learnt about this fact, her husband rang up to her father and threatened him to withdraw the complaint.
3. The only allegation made against the present petitioners is that at the instance of these petitioners, the complainant’s husband has been ill-treating and harassing her. The complaint lacks the particulars or details of the alleged instances of harassment or ill- treatment. Except making general and bald allegation in the complaint that her husband called her father over phone and issued threats to her, the time and date of the alleged phone call is not forthcoming in the complaint. Be that as it may. As against the present petitioners, there is not even a remote allegation to attract the ingredients of Section 498A or 506 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has laid emphasis on the further statement dated 18.07.2011 given by respondent No.2, before the Investigating Officer. I have perused this statement. Even in this further statement, there are no allegations whatsoever attracting the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 498A or 506 of IPC insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. Contrary to the allegations made in the FIR, in this further statement, she has alleged that the petitioners herein were instigating respondent No.2 not to give her any share in the family properties. This allegation apart from being an afterthought, even if accepted as true, does not satisfy the ingredients of either Section 498A or Section 506 of IPC. Thus viewed from any angle, the action initiated against the petitioners is a blatant misuse and a total abuse of the criminal process. The said proceedings, if allowed to continue, will result in failure of justice. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the impugned proceedings. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.209/2011 and all consequent proceedings arisen there-from including the proceedings pending in C.C.No.50/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Hassan, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners, namely accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. Proceeding shall continue only against accused No.1 therein.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/kps