Kumari Renuka vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The present petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in PC No. 19/13 later registered as CC No. 35/14 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg, Belgaum District.

The petition averments as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner discloses that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 8 in a private complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 herein. It is alleged in the complaint, that accused No. 1, Fakrusab Rajesab Khandunaik, developed an illicit intimacy with accused No. 8 and started to live with her leaving the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel that even the entire allegations made in the complaint, are translated into evidence, the allegations do not constitute any offence under any of the penal laws for time being in force. Further, it is contended that the allegations are made at paragraphs 10 and 11 which are only against accused No. 8. So far as the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 9 in the complaint are against accused Nos. 1 and 7. The allegations made at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint does not disclose the particular wording used by accused No. 8 in order to abuse the complainant, so as to come to the conclusion whether those abusive words attract Sections 504 or 506 or any of the other provisions invoked by the complainant. It is contended that the learned Magistrate without looking into the contents of the complaint, without meticulously reading the allegations made against accused No. 8, mechanically took the cognizance and issued process against the petitioner (accused No. 8).

The learned Counsel who is appearing for the respondent No. 2 has contended that the allegations made at paragraphs 10 and 11, at this stage, is broadly makes out a case against accused No. 8. The complainant has to be given an opportunity to elaborate the allegations made at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint. She can give evidence to attract the provisions of any penal laws during the course of any evidence. Therefore, he contended that the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

I have carefully perused the complaint averments at paragraphs 1 to 9. As rightly observed by the learned Counsel, there are some allegations against accused Nos. 1 to 7, that they have ill-treated and harassed the complainant in demand of cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- even after the marriage of the complainant and accused No. 8 and they have also demanded some gold articles and in connection with the same they have been ill-treating and harassing the complainant. For sometime, the complainant was in the house of accused Nos. 1 to 7 and after ill-treatment starts, she came to her father''s house and there also ill-treatment continued by accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanding the said amount and gold articles. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against the accused persons.

Now, turning to the specific allegations made against the accused No. 8 at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint, which reads as follows:-

On plain reading of the above said allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that accused 8 over phone abused the complainant stating that accused No. 1 will not continue the relationship as husband and wife with the complainant and he only live with A8. It is also alleged that A8 using filthy language used to abuse the complainant. At paragraph 11, it is alleged that A2 telephoned to the complainant that A1 and A8 will live together and the complainant can do anything she wants. Except that there is absolutely no other sort of allegations made against A8. Even accepting the above said allegations, in my opinion, the allegations does not constitute any offence under any of the penal provisions invoked by the complainant. Even accepting that filthy language is used as stated at paragraph 10 as to what is the vulgarness of the language used and what are the actual words used by A8 to abuse the complainant is not specifically stated in order to come to the conclusion whether those words amounts to using filthy language, filthy words/language used to attract the penal provisions, absolutely there is no allegation of threat, ill-treatment or harassment in demand of amount any or gold so far as this accused is concerned. In the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, when the allegations contained in the complaint even if it is broadly translated into evidence, at this stage, it would not constitute any offence against A8.

It is a well settled principles of law, that, when the complaint allegations does not constitute any offence under any of the penal provisions, the continuation of Criminal proceedings, amounts to abuse of process of court. In the above said circumstances, particularly so far as it relates to A8 is concerned, there is absolutely no allegations in the complaint so as to constitute any offence in any of the penal provisions.

The learned Magistrate in fact has not meticulously read the complaint, it appears in a very casual manner, he has taken cognizance and issued process against A8 also. Such an order in my opinion deserves to be interfered at the hands of this Court.

With these observations, I proceed to pass the following order:

Petition filed by the petitioner u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in PCR No. 19/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge JMFC, Ramdurga, Belgaum for the offence punishable u/s registered against A8 and all further proceedings are hereby quashed so far as it relates to A8.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, IA No. 1/2014 for stay also stands disposed off.