Subhash vs State of Kamataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—This petition is filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet filed by the Kalghatgi Police before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Kalghatgi, wherein the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered a case in C.C. No. 182/2013. It is seen from the records that a lady by name Smt. Neelavva W/o Basavannayya Hiremath lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein on 22.01.2013 alleging that her daughter by name Anasuya, aged about 28 years was given in marriage to one Karibasaiah Eraiah Hiremath. The husband of the said Anasuya died and thereafter the said Anasuya started living with the complainant along with her daughter aged about 6 years. The petitioner taking advantage of the death of husband of Anasuya started following her and inciting her and also pertaining that she fell in love with her and he often used to visit the house of the complainant. In spite of repeated advise by the complainant and other village people the petitioner did not heed from continuing from his said acts. It is also stated the accused/petitioner was once caught by the complainant in her house, she also conducted panchayat through the villagers and got advised the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with this panchayat it is alleged that the petitioner intensified his harassment to the said lady. In this background it is said that on 21.01.2013 in the morning at 11 A.M. the said lady by name Anasuya committed suicide by letting fire on herself and later shifted to the hospital and in KMC Hospital, Hubli, she succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of these allegations, the Police have completed the investigation, recorded statements of so many witnesses and finally came to the conclusion that the accused has to be put on trial before the competent Court. Therefore, they submitted the Charge Sheet. When the allegations made against the petitioner at the initial stages show that the allegations constituting an offence u/s 306 of IPC. They made the Police to investigate into the matter. The Magistrate also at the time of taking cognizance perused the entire charge sheet papers and took cognizance. When the charge sheet has already been filed and the materials collected by the Police i.e. statement of witnesses and other documentary evidence already placed before the Trial Court, in my opinion at this state, while exercising powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court cannot dwell into the truth or otherwise of the statement of the witnesses and also cannot in detail discuss about the intention of the accused and whether the conduct of the accused amounts to an abatement so as to drive the said lady to commit suicide. However, all these things can be looked into by the Sessions Court while dealing with the application u/s 227 of Cr.P.C.

It is worth to cite a, decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, laid down that "Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie".

In view of the above said decision when this Court is debarred from marshalling the statement of witnesses and the documents it may not be proper and appropriate to quash the entire proceedings as sought for.

It is worth to note here the proceedings u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

This Section gives wider discretion to the Sessions Court. For the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Sessions Court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible.

This view is expressed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, .

In view of the above said observations, if there are no materials to attract Section 306 of IPC and even if the entire material on record is translated into evidence is insufficient to convict the accused, then at the initial stages at the time of framing of charges, the Court can take such materials into consideration and pass appropriate order.

With these observations, liberty given to the petitioner to'' approach the Sessions Court for seeking discharge. In such an event, the Trial Court has to give opportunity to the accused and to dispose of the application for discharge in accordance with law. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.