Suramma W/O Thipperudrappa And Ors vs State Of Karnataka

In this pe tition, the petitioners challeng ing the initiation of the proceeding s in old C.C.No.118/2018 and ne w C.C.No.379/2019, presently it is pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMF C, Ballari, arose in Cr ime No.66/2017 for the offences punishab le under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506, 341 r/w 34 of IPC and seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings initiated ag ainst them in the aforesaid ne w C.C.No.379/2019.

Heard the lear ned counse l for the petitioners and the le arned HCGP for respondent No.1-State , so also learned counse l for respondent No.2.

Factual matrix of the pe tition are as under:

Respondent No.2 name ly Smt.Hosuramma is the mother-in-law of accuse d No.1-Nagaraj; Petitioner No.3 is the sister of accused No.1- Nagaraj and petitioner No.4 is the neighbour of accused No.1. The allegation made in the complaint that the comp lainant's daughter name ly Laxmid evi was g iven in marriage with accused-Nagaraj, subsequent to her marriage with him, his parents and his sister s looke d after we ll for few days. But sub sequently star ted to g ive harassment to her inclusive of petitioner No.4, who be ing the neighbour of accused No.1. The comp lainant-Hosuramma, filed a comp laint before the respondent-police against accused No.1, who is her son-in-law. Based upon her comp laint, case in Cr ime No.366/2019 came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. Sub sequent to registration of the cr ime against the accused , the Investigating Officer has inve stigated the case and laid the charge sheet ag ainst the accused in C.C.No.118/2018.

Sri Amare Gouda, learned counse l for the petitioner s has taken me through the averments made in the comp laint and so also the allegations made against the accused in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer in C.C.No.118/2018. He submits that on 17.06.2017 at around 10.00 a.m. when the complainant-Hosuramma and others went to leave her daughter-Laxmidevi in the house of her husband-Nagaraj, the mother-in-law of Laxmidevi restr ained them. In the meanwhile , her son-in-law Nagaraj arraigned as accused No.1 came and compressed the neck of Laxmidevi and assaulted on her private part. When the complainant asked about to do the acts by her son-in-law accused -Nag araj, on he r daughter that he pulled her saree and also abused her in filthy language and assaulted on her right hand and chest as we ll as stomach with me ans of iron rod. In the meanwhile of an incident presented by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 arraigned as accused , they were also pulled and pushed the comp lainant-Hosuramma and so also assaulted her and her daughter Laxmidevi. Pe titioner No.3 who is said to be father-in-law of her daughter, he had also pulled her saree.

Whereas, the counse l who has placed certified cop ie s of the FIR in Crime No.66/2017 as Annexure-C and certified copie s of the charge shee t laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused in C.C.No.118/2018 as Annexure-D. These documents have been produced by the le arned counse l for the purpose to app raise that there is no alle ction made to constitute the offences against the accused. But the comp laint came to be registered by the comp lainant-Hosuramma, who is none other than the mother-in-law of accused No.1 with a mala fide intention and in the ulterior motive in or der to wreck vengeance and also g ive harassment to the accused persons. The quarrel took on the same day, but the accused-pe titioners have cause d simple injurie s, but accused No.1 in the aforesaid cr ime has lodged the comp laint on the same day and the complainant in the aforesaid cr ime lodged by respondent No.2- Hosuramma is delay of one day. That itse lf ind icate s that the complainant has filed a complaint before the respondent-police in order to register the crime against the accused by imp licating them in the allege d crime that they had picked up q uarrel with her in her presence. Since from the marr iage of Laxmidevi, both partie s have developed ill-will and se veral case s were registered against both the par ties. Petitioner No.4 being neighbour who is also roped in the alleged crime , wherein he come forwarded to quell the incident took in be tween the par tie s. Despite of it, the very accused was also implicated in the charge shee t le ve lled against the m. Section 482 of Cr.P .C. be exercised for quashment of the entire proceedings le velled against them, who are required to face the tr ial and also prevent the abuse of process of the Cour t and otherwise to say to se cure the ends of justice. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counse l for the pe titioners and see king for quashment of the entire proceed ings initiated ag ainst the accused in old C.C.No.118/2018 and new C.C.No.379/2019.

Learned counse l name ly Sri Srinivas B. Naik for re spondent No.2 has taken me through the averments made in the comp laint and so also reflection made in the FIR recorded by the Police and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation and laid the charge shee t against the accused in C.C.No.118/2018. He submits that the complainant's daughter name ly Laxmide vi was g iven in marriage to the accused-Nagaraj. That accuse d No.1-Nag araj filed a comp laint against the comp lainant- respondent No.2 relating to the case in Crime No.45/2017 for the offence s p unishab le under Sections 109, 323, 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. The injured referred to VIMS Hospital, Ballari in order to provid e treatment. According ly, took treatment and the Doctor has issued Wound Certificate stands in the name of accused No.1. In the comp laint, made an allegation against accused No.1-Nagaraj that her daughter name ly Laxmid evi was g iven in marriage to that accused-Nagaraj. Subsequent to he r marriage, she had been to her husband's house and therein she led marital life only for fe w days. But the accused person such as Nagaraj and his parents, sisters and brothers of that accused had tormenting comp lainant's daughter. Ther efore, the panchayaths were constituted, but went in vain. Therefore, on 17.06.2017 at around 10.00 a.m. the complainant-Hosuramma and others went to the house of Nagaraj. At that time, the accused-Nagaraj p icked up q uarrel with the complainant and also assaulte d on her and so also assaulted her daughter in the ir presence. Therefore, the case in Cr ime No.45/2017 came to be registered and the counte r case in Crime No.66/2017 r elating to the case in C.C.No.118/2018 came to be registered and thereafter the Investigating Officer has laid the charge shee t against the accused. Therefore, the accused are required to face tr ial, as there are prima facie mater ials against the accuse d in committing the alleged offences and also given physical as we ll as mental harassment to the comp lainant's daughter. As there is ill-will developed in between the comp lainant- Hosuramma and her son-in-law Nagaraj and other accused, several cases were registere d against both p artie s. Though petitioner No.4- Mallikarjun is a neighbour being arraigned as accused, he had come for ward ed to que ll the incident took in between the parties. Desp ite of it, the very accused was also imp licated in the charge shee t le velled ag ainst them. Therefore, the accused are required to face the trial. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and seeking for d ismissal of the petition filed b y the pe titioners-accused.

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 has also adop te d the submission of the learned counse l for respondent No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the pe tition filed by these petitioners.

It is in this context of the contentions taken by the le arned counsel for the petitioners and so also the counter made by the le arned counse l for respondent No.2 and also learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State, it is re levant to refer the provision of Se ction 482 Cr .P.C. to exercise inherent jurisd iction. It is emb ark upon an enquiry whe ther the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonab le app reciation of the evidence the alleg ations are not sustainab le . The proposition find s support fr om the judg ment of this Cour t in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Mohd.Sharful Haque and another. This judgment has been referred in Cr iminal Appeal No.1082/2019 in the case of Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another dated 31.07.2019. The inherent jur isdiction, though wide and expansive, the same is to be exercised spar ingly, carefully and with caution and only when such e xercise is justified by the te sts spe cifically laid down in the Se ction itse lf, that is, to make orders as may b e necessary to g ive effect to any order under the Code , to preve nt the abuse of the proce ss of any Cour t or to otherwise secure the ends of justice . In this judgment, referred the case of S.W.Palanitkar and others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241. Se ction 482 of Cr.P.C. should not b e exercised to stifle leg itimate prosecution. But at the same time, if the basic ingredients of the offence alle ged are altoge ther absent, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 of Cr .P.C. It is we ll se ttled princip le s of law that where the alleg ations se t out in the comp laint or the char ge sheet do not constitute any offence , it is open to the H ig h Cour t, exercising its inherent jurisd iction under Section 482 of the Code, to quash the order passed by the Mag istrate taking cognizance of the offence . It is relevant to refer the judgment that M.A.A. Aannamali vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2010(8) SCC 524; Sharda Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1977 SC 1754 and Smt.Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947. The inhe rent power under Section 482 is to prevent the abuse of the process of the Cour t and to secure the ends of justice . Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is e xpressly barred under the Code. Reference may be made to Dharampal and others vs. Smt.Ramshri and others. In rejecting the ap plication, the High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, where this Court laid down the following guide lines for exer cise of power under Section 482.

(1) Where the alle gations made in the first infor mation report or the comp laint, even if the y ar e taken at the ir face value and accep ted in the ir entire ty do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the fir st information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cog nizab le offence , justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code exce pt under an order of a Mag istrate within the purview of Se ction 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted alleg ations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence colle cted in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused .

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizab le offence but constitute only a non-cognizab le offence , no investigation is permitted b y a police office r without an order of a Mag istrate as contemp late d under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the alle gations made in the FIR or comp laint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express leg al bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceed ing is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a spe cific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, provid ing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceed ing is manife stly attended with a mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulter ior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a vie w to sp ite him due to pr ivate and personal grudge.

The FIR has been recorded based upon the comp laint filed by the comp lainant. But in the instant case , the comp lainant- Hosuramma, who is no other than the mother- in-law of the accused-Nagaraj, that Nagaraj who had g iven physical as we ll as mental harassment to her daughter-Laxmidevi. Said Laxmidevi had given a comp laint before the respondent-police alleg ing that her husband and other accused had given physical as we ll as mental harassment and so also insisting her to br ing add itional dowry desp ite of rece ip t of considerable dowry during her marriage . The same has been revealed in Crime No.163/2017 relating to the case in C.C.No.399/2018. The power to quash the proceedings is generally exercised when there is no material to proceed against the petitioners be ing arraigned as accused. Even if the alle gations in the complaint are prima facie acce pted as true , the ingredients of offence s in C.C.No.379/2019 are contrary and the same has b een revealed in the state ment recorded by the Investigating Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082/2019 dated 31.07.2019 in detail addresse d the issue . Me rely because the power under Section 482 Cr.P .C. should not b e exercised to stifle leg itimate prosecution as where the accused is required to face tr ial for the offences le velled against the accused in C.C.No.118/2018 arose in Cr ime No.66/2017, which presently new C.C.No.379/2019 is pending on the file of the Court of the Pr incip al Civil Judge and JMF C, Ballari.

The police report or otherwise to stay the investigation report, it is a result of inve stigation done by the Investigating Office r under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., that inve stigation report is a conclusion that an Investigating Officer draws on the basis of mater ial colle cted during investigation and such conclusion can only form the base of a competent court to proceed with the case against the accused for trial. But in the instant case , Laxmidevi who is no othe r than the wife of accused No.1-Nagaraj has filed comp laint against him and others and based upon her complaint cr ime came to be registered and proceeded with the case for investigation and laid the charge shee t. Whereas, the accused - Nagaraj who assaulted the comp lainant- Hosuramma, who is no other than the mother- in-law of that accused-Nagaraj and also she being the mother of Laxmidevi. Therefore, the said crime which is reg istered by the respondent-police and proceeded with the case for investig ation and during investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the state ment of witne sse s and also drew mahazar for the alleg ed offence s. But the said state ment of witnesse s and so also the mater ials in which collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of inve stigation requires to be te sted by entering the witne sse s into the box and also subjecte d to cross-examination. But in this pe tition seeking for quashment of the e ntire proceedings in C.C.No.379/2019 initiated against the accused, but in a peculiar circumstances of the case and so also the guide lines issued in a judgment rendered by the Hon'b le Apex Cour t and also referred supra, it is said that there are no justifiable grounds as ur ged by the p etitioners be ing arraigned as accused . Therefor e, it is said that the pe tition is d eserve to be rejected.

Therefore, it is said that there are no substance s in the contention of the le arned counse l for the accused seeking intervention of the case in C.C.No.118/2018 arose out of Cr ime No.66/2017 and so also seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings leve lled against the accused.

In view of the aforesaid reasons and find ing s, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be rejected. Accord ingly, it is rejected . Consequently, the petitioners-accused are required to face the tr ial in Cr ime No.66/2017 arose in new C.C.No.379/2019, which is pending on the file of the Cour t of the Principal Civil Judge and JMF C at Ballari.

However, keeping in vie w the submission made by the learned counse l for the petitioners, the Trial Court in C.C.No.379/2019 is d irected to expedite the case for disposal in accordance with law.