Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1602 (KAR)

Vidya v. State By Halgur Police Malavalli, Mandya

2017-12-05

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in SC No.39/2015 registered for the offences punishable u/ss.306, 506 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the said Sessions Case. 2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the record are that the petitioner is none other than the wife of the deceased Vijay and their marriage took place on 6.11.2011. It appears, there was some domestic dispute between the deceased - husband and wife - accused No.1. The wife was suspecting that, the deceased husband was impotent. On these grounds, it is alleged that, the petitioner has been ill-treating and harassing the deceased - husband. In this context, there was a quarrel between two groups, one from the side of wife and another from the husband's side. It is stated that on 14.4.2013, they quarreled each other and sustained injuries on both the sides and thereafter the complaints have been filed by them against each other. 3. In fact, for the same incident dated 14.04.2013 there has been two crime numbers registered i.e., one Crime No.69/2013 and another Crime No.77/2013. Crime No.69/2013 was filed by the wife whereas, Crime No.77/2013 was filed by the relatives of her husband. In this context, it is alleged that on 14.4.2013 after the quarrel between two groups the parties went to the Police Station and it is alleged that, the petitioner has ill-treated and harassed the deceased and as well she tried to defame him in the Police Station etc. wife (petitioner) also made allegations that, he has posted the photographs of the petitioner in the website etc., It is in this context it is alleged that the said deceased Vijay frustrated due to the harassment and ill-treatment by his wife and has committed suicide by hanging himself in his house which led to filing of one more complaint by the relatives of the deceased Vijay in Crime No.77/2013. The police have registered that case u/ss.143, 147, 504, 306 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, and after thorough investigation submitted the charge sheet. 4. Both the counsels concede that the matter is now pending before the trial Court for evidence. It is also not in dispute that the accused persons have tried their fate by filing applications for discharge. 4. Both the counsels concede that the matter is now pending before the trial Court for evidence. It is also not in dispute that the accused persons have tried their fate by filing applications for discharge. However, the Sessions case has rejected the same. The said order of the Sessions court has not been subjected to any Revision or Appeal before any court of law. Therefore, the fact remains that, the trial Court had already an occasion to weigh the materials on record to come to a conclusion that, there are some semblance of materials to proceed against the accused persons u/s.306 of IPC. 5. What the learned counsel tried to persuade this court is that, the entire materials if it is seen, the incident had taken place on 14.4.2013 itself and thereafter the deceased and others were released on bail and they lodged a complaint on 17.4.2013 i.e., after three days and that on 22.4.2013, deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, there is no nexus between the act of the accused petitioner and the alleged suicide. Even if it is accepted, there is no material to connect the death of the deceased. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends before this court that the husband and wife never lived together at any point of time. In-spite of repeated compromise or advice by the elders of the family, they could not able to pull on their life together. Therefore, this also might be the root cause for commission of suicide by the Husband. 6. There is no allegation against the petitioner directly or indirectly facilitating or instigating the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, he contends that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. Contrary to this, the learned Senior counsel submits that the matter has already been posted for evidence and the court has already came to the conclusion that there are materials to frame charges and proceed against the accused. Whatever the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be tested during the course of full dressed trial to find out whether the petitioner really intended to drive the husband of the petitioner to commit suicide or not. Whatever the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be tested during the course of full dressed trial to find out whether the petitioner really intended to drive the husband of the petitioner to commit suicide or not. I do agree with the submission made by the learned counsel that, when the matter is set down for evidence and the petitioner has already tried their fate before the trial Court by making an application at the time of framing of charges and on hearing the application filed by the accused, the trial Court had got an opportunity to weigh the materials on record, though not to appreciate the material. Therefore, on weighing the materials on record when the trial Court has come to such conclusion, it may not be proper on the part of this court to quash the proceedings when the matter is set down for evidence. Whether instigation was there or other things as argued by the learned counsel has to be considered by the trial Court during the course of evidence. 8. In this context, it is worth to mention here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 between Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with Section 306 of IPC has categorically stated that - "Satisfaction of the court in relation to existence of constituents of offence and facts leading to offence is sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction - Court at Section 228 Cr.P.C. stage is not concerned with proof but merely strong suspicion that accused has committed offence - Final test of guilt is not to be applied at stage of framing of charge. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative act of the trial court by finding prima facie material only on record and not for the purpose of convicting the accused at that particular point of time. Ultimately, what the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed at paragraph 27.11 is that where the allegations made in the charge sheet papers gives rise to some semblance of material for the purpose of proceeding against the accused i.e., sufficient to frame charges. Quashing of a charge should be an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Ultimately, what the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed at paragraph 27.11 is that where the allegations made in the charge sheet papers gives rise to some semblance of material for the purpose of proceeding against the accused i.e., sufficient to frame charges. Quashing of a charge should be 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. But it is only a tentative opinion formed prima facie by the court." Having come to such conclusion, the Apex Court was reluctant to quash the proceedings and ordered the trial Court to proceed with the matter. 9. In this particular case also, what was the relationship between the husband and wife and what was the allegations made against this petitioner from the date of their marriage. All those things have to be taken into consideration in order to ascertain whether the act of the petitioner was so sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide. Therefore, when the facts are hazy, the court should not quash such proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no such strong material to come to a definite conclusion at this stage that, the complaint has been made with a vengeance and without any basis. Hence, I do not find any strong reasons to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got selected for the post of Sub-Inspector, in the Police Department. Hence, it is just and necessary for the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.