IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5820 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SURESH.L AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH R/O HALANAYAKANAHALLI KARMALANUR POST VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560087 (BY SRI: H.C. HANUMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 2. SMT. HEMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY R/O NO.1/3 THIMMAREDDY ROAD ... PETITIONER APPREDDYPALYA INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 038 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: K.DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.52450/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF X A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 324 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to the quash charge sheet laid against him for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 324, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 10.02.1988 and after the marriage, accused No.1 persistently subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty and ill-treatment in the matrimonial home. It is further stated that on 10.08.2014, at about 1.30 p.m., in the night, accused No.1 confined her in a room and assaulted her indiscriminately and also squeezed her neck.
4. As could be seen from the above narration, all these instances are directed only against accused No.1 which constitute the offences under sections 498A, 324 of IPC.
5. Insofar as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, the only allegation made in the charge sheet is that petitioner/accused No.2 threatened her to sign blank papers for the purpose of sale of her immovable properties. Charge sheet does not contain any document bearing the signature of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for petitioner has produced copy of the agreement of sale dated 19.04.2012 executed by respondent No.2 along with accused No.1 and two other persons namely their children in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.30/2 of Halanayakanahalli village. Petitioner herein is the purchaser of the said properties and under the said agreement, he is seen to have paid in all a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- out of Rs.40,00,000/- as consideration. The recitals of the said agreement go to show that the said properties belonged to the ancestors of accused No.1 and not to respondent No.2. There is no other document to show that respondent No.2 is owning any immovable properties in respect of which petitioner herein could have obtained the signatures of respondent No.2.
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there was absolutely no basis for the prosecution to implicate the petitioner herein for the alleged offences under sections 506 read with 34 of IPC. Even otherwise, the material on record indicate that two years after execution of aforesaid agreement of sale, petitioner himself had filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement and the same is seized by the Civil Court. Under the above circumstances, prosecution of the petitioner, is wholly baseless and amounts to abuse of process of court.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Charge sheet in C.C.No.52450/2015 on the file of X ACMM Court, Bangalore, is quashed only insofar as the petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned. Trial shall proceed accused No.1 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss